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".
DUTY OF THE LRA TO ISSUE DECREE MINISTERIAL
Decree of registration is issued in the name of the court by the
Administrator of the LRA in his capacity as an officer of the court
and not as an administrative official merely
His duty is merely ministerial as he is acting under the orders of the
court.
DECREE OF REGISTRATION BINDS THE LAND AND QUIETS
TITLE THERETO AND IS CONCLUSIVE UPON AND AGAISNT ALL
PERSONS
Issuance of the decree
a. If the court finds after hearing that the applicant or adverse
claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim and
proper for registration, a decree of confirmation and registration
shall be entered
b. The Court declares the decision final and instructs the LRA to
issue a decree of confirmation and registration within 15 days from
entry of judgment
Note: It is not the court that issues the decree, but the
LRA who issues the decree of confirmation and registration.
This duty to issue the decree of registration does not prescribe.
Republic v. Nillas, G.R. No. 159595 (2007)]
c. One year after issuance of the decree, it becomes incontrovertible
and amendments of the same will not be allowed except in cases of
clerical errors Court retains jurisdiction over the case until after the
expiration of 1 year from the issuance of the decree of registration.
[Gomez v. CA, (1988)]
Note: While a decision in land registration proceeding
becomes final after the expiration of thirty days from the date
of service of its notice, the decree of registration does not
become final until after the lapse of one year from the date of
its issuance and entry.
Entry of the decree of registration
This serves as the reckoning date to determine the 1-year period
from which one can impugn the validity of the registration. [Sec. 32,
PD 1529]
a. Decree is entered in the LRA
b. Every decree of registration shall:
1. Bear the day of the year, hour, and minute of its entry,
2. Be signed by the Administrator of the Land Registration
Authority in his ex officio capacity as Clerk of Court in land
registration matters
3. State whether the owner is:
● Married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the
husband or wife, provided that if the land adjudicated is
conjugal property, it shall be issued in the names of both
spouses.
● If the owner is under disability, it shall state the nature of
the disability,
● If the owner is a minor, his age
4. Contain a description of the land as finally determined by the
court,
5. Set forth the estate of the owner, and also, in such manner as to
show their relative priority, all particular estates, mortgages,
easements, liens, attachments and other encumbrances, including
rights of tenant-farmer, if any, to which the land or owner’s estate is
subject,
6. Contain any other matter properly to be determined [Sec. 31, PD
1529]
Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the
corresponding Register of Deeds (Registrar of Land Titles and
Deeds)
Transcription of the decree of registration
a. It is transcribed in the registration book of the Registrar of Land
Titles and Deeds
b. Registrar issues owner’s duplicate OCT of the applicant by the
Registrar of Land Titles and Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed
fees.

3. Nature of the Proceedings

1. Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998
Sps laburada applied for the registration of lot 3-a located in
madaluyong which was approved by the trial court. Upon motion of
the
sps , the trial court ordered LRA to issue the corresponding decree
of
registration. However the LRA refused. Hence sps filed for
mandamus.
Based on the record, some portions of the lot 3-a which is sought to
be
registered is covered by certificates issued prior to the decree.
WON LRA may be compelled by mandamus.
Court has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land
already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second
decree for the same land is void. This is so, because when once
decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land
thus determined is already a res judicata binding on the
whole
world, the proceedings being in rem. The court has no power in a
subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud nor within the statutory
period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another person.
Furthermore, the registration of the property in the name of the first
registered owner in the Registration Book is a standing notice to the
world that said property is already registered in his name. Hence,
the latter applicant is chargeable with notice that the
land he
applied for is already covered by a title so he has no
right
whatsoever.
In other words, the first proceedings are in rem which binds the
second proceedings.
“As the title of the respondents, who hold certificates of title under
the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible, it follows that the
Court of First Instance has no power or jurisdiction to
entertain
proceedings for the registration of the same parcels of land covered
by the certificates of title of the respond

3. Nature of the Proceedings

1. Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998
Sps laburada applied for the registration of lot 3-a located in
madaluyong which was approved by the trial court. Upon motion of
the
sps , the trial court ordered LRA to issue the corresponding decree
of
registration. However the LRA refused. Hence sps filed for
mandamus.
Based on the record, some portions of the lot 3-a which is sought to
be
registered is covered by certificates issued prior to the decree.
WON LRA may be compelled by mandamus.
Court has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land
already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second
decree for the same land is void. This is so, because when once
decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land
thus determined is already a res judicata binding on the
whole
world, the proceedings being in rem. The court has no power in a
subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud nor within the statutory
period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another person.
Furthermore, the registration of the property in the name of the first
registered owner in the Registration Book is a standing notice to the
world that said property is already registered in his name. Hence,
the latter applicant is chargeable with notice that the
land he
applied for is already covered by a title so he has no
right
whatsoever.
In other words, the first proceedings are in rem which binds the
second proceedings.
“As the title of the respondents, who hold certificates of title under
the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible, it follows that the
Court of First Instance has no power or jurisdiction to
entertain
proceedings for the registration of the same parcels of land covered
by the certificates of title of the respond
SPOUSES MARIANO and ERLINDA LABURADA, represented by
their attorney-in-fact, MANUEL SANTOS, JR.,petitioners, vs.
LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondent.[G.R. No.
101387, March 11, 1998]
FACTS:
Spouses Laburada applied for the registration of Lot 3-A in
Mandaluyong City which was approved by the trial court
on January 8, 1991 finding the application meritorious and it
appearing that the applicants, Spouses Marciano [sic] and Erlinda
Laburada, have a registrable title over the parcel of land described
as Lot 3A, Psd-1372, the Court declares, confirms and orders the
registration of their title thereto. Upon motion of petitioners, the
trial court issued an order requiring the LRA to issue the
corresponding decree of registration. However, the LRA
refused. Hence, petitioners filed this action for mandamus.
The LRA revealed that based on records, Lot 3-A which sought to be
registered by Spouses Laburada is part of Lot No. 3, over which TCT
No. 6595 has already been issued. Upon the other hand, Lot 3-B of
said Lot 3 is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29337
issued in the name of Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor, which was
issued as a transfer from TCT No. 6595. The LRA contended that to
issue the corresponding decree of registration sought by the
petitioners, it would result in the duplication of titles over the same
parcel of land, and thus contravene the policy and purpose of the
Torrens registration system, and destroy the integrity of the same.
The solicitor general prays that the petition be dismissed for being
premature.
Petitioners filed an urgent motion, the Court resolved it and require
the Solicitor General to report to the Court in detail, within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of this Resolution, what concrete and specific
steps, if any, have been taken by respondent since 19 May 1993 to
actually verify whether the lot subject of LRC Case No. N-11022
(Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 68), described as Lot 3A, Psd-
1372 and situated in Mandaluyong City, might be a portion of the
parcels of land decreed in Court of Land Registration Case (CLR)
Nos. 699, 875 and 917.
On December 29, 1995, the solicitor general submitted his
compliance with the above resolution, to which was attached a
letter, dated November 27, 1997, of Feline M. Cortez, chief of the
LRA Ordinary and Cadastral Decree Division, which states: 
a copy of our letter dated 29 April 1992 addressed to Hon. Ramon
S. Desuasido stating among others that Lot 3-B, of the subdivision
plan Psd-1372, a portion of Lot 3, Blk. 159, Swo-7237 is really
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29337 issued in the
name of Pura Escurdia Vda. de Bunaflor. However, the title issued
for the subject lot, Lot 3-A of the subdivision plan Psd-1372, cannot
be located because TCT #6595 is incomplete.
It was also informed [sic] that for this Authority to issue the
corresponding decree of registration sought by the petitioners
pursuant to the decision dated January 9, 1991 and order dated
March 15, 1991, would result in the duplication of [the] title over
the same parcel of land, and thus contravene the policy and
purposes of the torrens registration system, and destroy the
integrity of the same (O.R. No. 63189 Pedro K. San Jose vs. Hon.
Eutropio Migriño, et. al.).
Hence, this case will be submitted to the Court for dismissal to
avoid duplication of title over the same parcel of land.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the LRA may be compelled by mandamus to issue a
decree of registration if it has evidence that the subject land may
already be included in an existing Torrens certificate of title?
HELD:
 NO.
Contrary to the petitioners’ allegations, the judgment they seek to
enforce in this petition is not yet executory and incontrovertible
under the Land Registration Law. That is, they do not have
any clear legal right to implement it.
A judgment of registration does not become executory until after th
e expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final decree of
registration. 
That the LRA hesitates in issuing a decree of registration is
understandable. Considering the probable duplication of titles over
the same parcel of land, such issuance may contravene the policy
and the purpose, and thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens
system of registration. It is settled that 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. A second decree
for the same land would be null and void, since the principle behind
original registration is to register a parcel of land only once. Thus, if
it is proven that the land which petitioners are seeking to register
has already been registered in 1904 and 1905, the issuance of a
decree of registration to petitioners will run counter to said
principle. The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the
judicial function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which
may be compelled through mandamus. It is well-settled that the
issuance of such decree is not compellable by mandamus because it
is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion. Likewise, the
writ of mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioners’ legal
right to the performance of the particular act which is sought to be
compelled is clear and complete.
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a clear legal right is a right
which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of
law. If the right is clear and the case is meritorious, objections
raising merely technical questions will be disregarded. But where
the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute,
as in this case, mandamus cannot issue. In view of the foregoing, it
is not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a decree of
registration. 
However, to avoid multiplicity of suits and needless delay
this Court deems it more appropriate to direct the LRA to expedite
its study, to determine with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in
the property described in TCT No. 6595, and to submit a report
thereon to the court of origin within sixty (60) days from receipt of
this Decision, after which the said court shall act with deliberate
speed according to the facts and the law, as herein discussed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED but the case is
REMANDED to the court of origin in Pasig City. The Land
Registration Authority, on the other hand, is ORDERED to submit
to the court a quo a report determining with finality whether Lot 3-
A is included in the property described in TCT No. 6595, within
sixty (60) days from notice. After receipt of such report, the land
registration court, in turn, is ordered to ACT, with deliberate
and judicious speed, to settle the issue of whether the LRA may
issue the decree of registration, according to the facts and the law
as herein discussed. SO ORDERED

MANOTOK REALTY V. CLT REALTY

FACTS:
This decision includes two separate cases decided as one because of
their similarities: Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty and Araneta
Institute of Agriculture, Inc. v. Heirs of Jose B. Dimson Manotok
Realty v. CLT Realty.
This petition involved properties covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 994 which encompasses 1,342 hectares of the
Maysilo Estate. The vast tract of land stretches over three (3) cities
within Metro Manila, comprising an area larger than the sovereign
states of Monaco and the Vatican.
 August 1992, CLT Realty Development Corporation (CLT) sought to
recover from Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the Manotoks) the possession of Lot 26 of
the Maysilo Estate. CLT’s claim was anchored on a TCT derived
from Estelita Hipolito through a Deed of Sale with Real Estate
Mortgage. Hipolito’s title emanated from Jose Dimson whose title
appears to have been sourced from OCT No. 994.
For their part, the Manotoks challenged the validity of the title
relied on by CLT, claiming that Dimson’s title, the proximate source
of CLT’s title, was irregularly issued and, hence, the same and
subsequent titles flowing therefrom are likewise void. The Manotoks
asserted their ownership over Lot 26 and claimed that they derived
it from several awardees and/or vendees of the NHA. The Manotok
title likewise traced as its primary source OCT No. 994.
The trial court ruled for CLT, concluding that the Manotoks’
property encroached on the former’s property as described in the
latter’s title. Manotoks’ appeal to the CA was denied; MR was also
denied.
Hence, this petition.
Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. v. Heirs of Jose B. Dimson
August 1992, Dimson filed a complaint for recovery of possession
and damages against Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc.
(Araneta). He alleges that he was the absolute owner of a part of the
Maysilo Estate in Malabon.
The trial court ruled for Dimson, saying that the absence of the
original survey dates of OCT No. 994 on the Manotoks’ chain of
titles should mean that OCT No. 994 was not the mother title the
Manotoks claim it to be (This means that the Manotoks’ claim
against CLT is deemed unfounded).
Araneta for its part admitted occupancy of the disputed land by
constructing some buildings thereon and subdividing portions
thereof in the exercise of its right as absolute owner. He alleged that
Dimson's title to the subject land was void and hence he had no
cause of action.
The trial court ruled for Dimson in its Decision dated 28 May 1993
with these findings: there were inherent technical infirmities or
defects in the titles that formed each link in the chain of ownership
that culminated in the Manotok title, i.e., that the technical
descriptions in the titles were written in Spanish whereas those in
the alleged mother title, OCT No. 994, were in English, which, an
abnormal state that deviated from the usual practice in the
issuance of titles; and
second, it was established procedure to indicate in the certificate of
title, whether original or transfer certificate, the date of the original
survey of the mother title together with the succeeding date of
subdivision or consolidation.
Thus, the absence of the original survey dates of OCT No. 994 on
Manotok's chain of titles, the trial court added, should mean that
OCT No. 994 was not the mother title not only because the original
survey dates were different but also because the original survey
date must always be earlier than the issue date of the original title.
OCT No. 994 was issued on May 3, 1917 which was much ahead of
the survey date indicated in the succeeding titles, which is
December 22, 1917.18
The CA affirmed the findings of the lower court. Briefly, the two
cases involved challenges against the validity of the parties’
separate titles to certain portions of the Maysilo Estate.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
Issue: Whether or not the titles issued in the name of CLT (and
Dimson) are valid - NO
Ratio:
It is evident from all three titles ─ CLT’s, Hipolito’s and Dimson’s—
that the properties they purport to cover were " originally registered
on 19 April 1917” in the Registration Book of the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Rizal." These titles could be affirmed only if it
can be proven that OCT No. 994 registered on 19 April 1917 had
actually existed. CLT were given the opportunity to submit such
proof but it did not.
The established legal principle in actions for annulment or
reconveyance of title is that a party seeking it should establish not
merely by a preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing
evidence that the land sought to be reconveyed is his. In an action
to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must
rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the
defendant's claim.
Considering that CLT clearly failed to meet the burden of proof
reposed in them as plaintiffs in the action for annulment of title and
recovery of possession, there is a case to be made for ordering the
dismissal of their srcinal complaints before the trial court. As it
appears on the record, OCT No. 994, the mother title was received
for transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917 based
from the issuance of the decree of registration on 17 April 1917.
Obviously, April 19, 1917 is not the date of inscription or the date
of transcription of the decree into the Original Certificate of Title.
Thus, such date cannot be considered as the date of the title or the
date when the title took effect. It appears that the transcription of
the decree was done on the date it was received by the Register of
Deeds of Rizal on May 3, 1917.
There is a marked distinction between the entry of the decree and
the entry of the certificate of title; the entry of the decree is made by
the chief clerk of the land registration and the entry of the
certificate of title is made by the register of deeds. The certificate of
title is issued in pursuance of the decree of registration. It was
stressed that what stands as the certificate of the title is the
transcript of the decree of registration made by the registrar of
deeds in the registry.
o What is actually issued by the register of deeds is the certificate of
title itself, not the decree of registration, as he is precisely the
recipient from the land registration office of the decree for
transcription to the certificate as well as the transcriber no less.
o A decree of registration is an order issued under the signature of
the Commissioner of Land Registration (formerly Chief, G.L.R.O.) in
the name of the Judge to the fact that the land described therein is
registered in the name of the applicant or oppositor or claimant as
the case maybe. When this is transcribed or spread in toto in the
registration book and signed by the register of deeds, the page on
which the transcription is made become the original certificate of
title, more commonly called the Torrens title.
o The land becomes a registered land only upon the transcription of
the decree in the original registration book by the register of deeds,
the date and time of such transcription being set forth in the
process and certified to at the foot of each entry or certificate of
title.
o The issuance of the original and owners duplicate certificates are
basic for the valid existence of the title. Issuance of additional
copies are permissive and their non-existence does not affect the
status of title. A certificate of title is deemed as regularly issued
with the issuance of the original copy and owners duplicate.
Moreover, it is only after the transcription of the decree by the
register of deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect.
Hence, any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated 17
April 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent. The fact that
CLT title made specific reference to an OCT No. 994 dated 17 April
1917 casts doubt on the validity of such titles since they refer to an
inexistent OCT. This error alone is, in fact, sufficient to invalidate
the CLT claims over the subject property if singular reliance is
placed by them on the dates appearing on their respective titles.
The Court hereby constitutes a Special Division of the Court of
Appeals to hear the case on remand. In ascertaining which of the
conflicting claims of title should prevail, the Special Division is
directed to make further determinations based on the evidence
already on record and such other evidence as may be presented at
the proceedings before it.
WHEREFORE, the instant cases are hereby REMANDED to the
Special Division of the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
SUMMARY: The parties have opposing claims on certain portions of
the Maysilo Estate. CLT Realty and the Heirs of Dimson rely on a
TCT which appears to derived from the OCT which covers the whole
property. The Court found that the properties covered by their titles
were registered on a date completely different from the date
indicated in the OCT. Because of this difference, the Court held that
their titles were void.
DOCTRINE: The land becomes a registered land only upon the
transcription of the decree in the original registration book by the
register of deeds, the date and time of such transcription being set
forth in the process and certified to at the foot of each entry or
certificate of title.
Petition for review of decree. (Sec. 32, PD No. 1529)
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.
In Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, the Supreme Court, citing
Agcaoili, “Property Registration Decree and Related Laws (Land
Titles and Deeds)”, stressed that courts may reopen proceedings
already closed by final decision or decree when an application for
review is filed by the party aggrieved within one year from the
issuance of the decree of registration. However, the basis of the
aggrieved party must be anchored solely on actual fraud. It has
been ruled that the petition may be filed at any time after the
rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one
year from the entry of the final decree of registration for, as noted in
Rivera v. Moran, there can be no possible reason for requiring the
complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before
urging his claim of fraud. The rule on the incontrovertibility and
indefeasibility of a Torrens title after one year from entry of the
decree of registration is equally applicable to titles acquired through
homestead or free patents.
It has been held that the date of issuance of the patent corresponds
to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration
cases. Under the Torrens system of registration, the Torrens
becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible one year from the
issuance of the final decree and is generally conclusive evidence of
the ownership. The rule on the inconvertibility and indefeasibility of
a Torrens title after one year from entry of the decree of registration
is equally applicable to title acquired through homestead or free
patents. Only extrinsic or collateral, as distinguished form intrinsic,
fraud is a ground for annulling a judgment.
To avail of a petition for review, the following requisites must
be satisfied:
(a) the petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land;
(b) he must show actual fraud in the procurement of the decree of
registration;
(c) the petition must be filed within one (1) year from the issuance of
the decree by the Land Registration Authority; and
(d) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for
value.
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party
in a litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case against
the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby
said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his
side of the case. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud refers to acts of
a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the
presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just
determination of the case.
Relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where the
fraud consists in the following acts:
(a) Deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested
when in fact they are;
(b) Applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the
name of a coowner of land which he knows had not been alloted to
him in the partition;
(c) Intentionally concealing facts, and conniving with the land
inspector to include in the survey plan the bed of a navigable
stream;
(d) Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims;
(e) Deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice;
(f) Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application for
registration;
(g) Misrepresentation by the applicant about the identity of the lot
to the true owner causing the latter to withdraw his opposition.
(h) Failure of the applicant to disclose in her application for
registration the vital facts that her husband’s previous application
for a revocable permit and to purchase the lands in question from
the Bureau of Lands had been rejected, because the lands were
already reserved as a site for school purposes;
(i) Deliberate falsehood that the lands were allegedly inherited by
the applicant from her parents, which misled the Bureau of Lands
into not filling the opposition and thus effectively depriving the
Republic of its day in court.
In all these examples, the overriding consideration is that the
fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from
having his day in court or from presenting his case. The fraud,
therefore, is one that affects and goes into the jurisdiction of the
court.
PETITION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF
ENTRY OF THE DECREE—this decree pertains to the decree
prepared and issued by the LRA
IN CASE OF PUBLIC LANDS, HOW SHOULD THE PERIOD BE
COMPUTED?
Date of issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the decree
in ordinary registration cases
Decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party
entitled to it and the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally
and finally grants, awards, and conveys the lands applied for to the
applicant.
WHEN RELIEF MAY NOT BE GRANTED?
1. When the alleged fraud goes into the merits of the case, is
intrinsic, and has been controverted and decided
2. Where it appears that the fraud consisted in the presentation at
the trial of a supposed forged document, or of a false or perjured
testimony, or in basing a judgment on a fraudulent CA, or in the
alleged fraudulent acts or omissions of the accused
INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE AND IN GOOD FAITH
One who buys property of another, without notice that some other
person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full
and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or Before
he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the
property
Good faith is the honest intention to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage of another
The decree guarantees to every purchaser of registered land in good
faith that they can take and hold the same free from any and all
prior claims, liens and encumbrances except those set forth in the
certificate of title  Good faith requires a well-founded belief that
the person from whom the title was received was himself the owner
of the land, with the right to convey it
Action for Damages
An Action for damages can be availed of when reconveyance is no
longer possible as when the land has been transferred to an
innocent purchaser for value [Ching v. CA, G.R. No. L59731 (1990)]
An ordinary action for damages prescribes in 10 years after the
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
ISSUANCE OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE
The court shall issue within 15 days from the entry thereof, an
order directing the LRA administrator to issue the corresponding
decree of registration and certificate of title.
Certificate of ownership issued by the Register of Deeds naming and
declaring the owner of the real property described therein free from
all liens and encumbrances, except such as may be expressly noted
thereon or otherwise reserved by law.
While certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and binding
against the whole world, including the government itself, they do
not create or vest title. They merely confirm or record title already
existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from
the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission
of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense
of other.
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
1. The OCT shall be the true copy of the decree of registration
2. Transcript of the decree
3. Accumulates in one decree a precise and correct statement of the
exact status of the fee simle title which an owner possesses
4. Evidence of the title which the owner has
5. What appears on the face of the title is controlling on questions
of ownership sicne the certificate of title is an absolute and
indeafisible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the
person whose name appears theein
DECREE BINDS THE LAND AND IS CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE
WHOLE WORLD
As soon as the decree of title has been registered in the office of the
RD, the property included therein becomes registered land.
Certificate of title shall take effect upon the transcription of the
decree.
REGISTRATION DOESN'T GIVE ANY PERSON A BETTER TITLE
THAN WHAT HE REALLY HAS PROBATIVE VALUE OF A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Serves as an indeafisible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears therein and is conclusive as to the identity of
the land and its location
The title becomes indeafisible and incontrovertible one year from its
final decree
The notations or memoranda at the back of the certificate aren’t
admissible as proof of the contracts or documents to which they
pertain
Validity and correctness of the title is presumed.
WHERE TWO OR MORE CERTIFICATES COVER THE SAME
LAND, THE EARLIER IN DATE PREVAILS
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. Should
there be only one common original certificate of title, the transfer
certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail,
absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of
registration.
An original certificate of title issued by virtue of administrative
proceeding is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under
judicial proceedings.
However, the indefeasibility of title does not attach to titles secured
by fraud and misrepresentation. One who deals with property
registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the
certificate of title, but only has to rely on the certificate of title. He is
charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are
annotated on the title.
ENTRY OF OCT
The OCT is issued for the first time after initial registration
proceedings.
OCT shall be the true coy of the decree of registration.
Upon receipt of the RD of the original and duplicate copy of the
certificate of title, he shall enter the same in the record book and
shall be numbered, dated and signed and sealed with the seal of his
office.
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) – It is the first certificate of title
issued in the name of the registered owner by the Register of Deeds
covering a parcel of land which had been registered under the
Torrens System, by virtue of judicial or administrative proceedings.
ISSUANCE OF THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE
Shall be delivered to the registered owner or his duly authorized
representative
If 2 or more persons are registered owners, one owner’s duplicate
may be issued for the whole land
If the 2 co-owners desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to
each of them in like form but all outstanding certificates so issued
shall be surrendered whenever the RD shall register any
subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part
thereof or any interest therein.
FORGED DEED MAY BE THE ROOT OF A VALID TITLE
Generally, a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no
title. But 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, and while it remained
that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser