Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    DBP v. Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK 7671, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 450

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) presented a sheriff's certificate of sale for registration regarding two parcels of land covered by titles in others' names. The registration was entered but annotation could not be made as the original titles were missing. DBP instituted reconstitution proceedings and the titles were eventually reconstituted. DBP then sought annotation of the certificate based on the original entry. The issue was whether an instrument subject to a primary entry is deemed registered from the time noted pending annotation on the title. The Court ruled yes, that annotation on the reconstituted titles was proper and justified, and that holding the original entry ineffective would be unjust and contrary to law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DBP v. Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK 7671, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 450

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    57 views1 page
    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) presented a sheriff's certificate of sale for registration regarding two parcels of land covered by titles in others' names. The registration was entered but annotation could not be made as the original titles were missing. DBP instituted reconstitution proceedings and the titles were eventually reconstituted. DBP then sought annotation of the certificate based on the original entry. The issue was whether an instrument subject to a primary entry is deemed registered from the time noted pending annotation on the title. The Court ruled yes, that annotation on the reconstituted titles was proper and justified, and that holding the original entry ineffective would be unjust and contrary to law.

    Original Description:

    LTD

    Original Title

    278. DBP v. Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK 7671, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 450

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) presented a sheriff's certificate of sale for registration regarding two parcels of land covered by titles in others' names. The registration was entered but annotation could not be made as the original titles were missing. DBP instituted reconstitution proceedings and the titles were eventually reconstituted. DBP then sought annotation of the certificate based on the original entry. The issue was whether an instrument subject to a primary entry is deemed registered from the time noted pending annotation on the title. The Court ruled yes, that annotation on the reconstituted titles was proper and justified, and that holding the original entry ineffective would be unjust and contrary to law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views1 page

    DBP v. Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK 7671, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 450

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) presented a sheriff's certificate of sale for registration regarding two parcels of land covered by titles in others' names. The registration was entered but annotation could not be made as the original titles were missing. DBP instituted reconstitution proceedings and the titles were eventually reconstituted. DBP then sought annotation of the certificate based on the original entry. The issue was whether an instrument subject to a primary entry is deemed registered from the time noted pending annotation on the title. The Court ruled yes, that annotation on the reconstituted titles was proper and justified, and that holding the original entry ineffective would be unjust and contrary to law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    278. DBP v.

    Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK 7671, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 450

    FACTS

    On June 13, 1980, the Development Bank of the Philippines (hereafter, DBP) presented
    for registration to the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan City, a sheriff's
    certificate of sale in its favor of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of
    Title Nos. NT-149033 and NT-149034, both in the names of the spouses Andres
    Bautista and Marcelina Calison, which said institution had acquired as the highest
    bidder at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The transaction was entered as Entry No.
    8191 in the Registry's Primary Entry Book and DBP paid the requisite registration fees
    on the same day. Annotation of the sale on the covering certificates of title could not,
    however be effected because the originals of those certificates were found to be
    missing from the files of the Registry, where they were supposed to be kept, and could
    not be located.  On the advice of the Register of Deeds, DBP instituted proceedings in
    the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to reconstitute said certificates, and
    reconstitution was ordered by that court in a decision rendered on June 15, 1982.   For
    reasons not apparent on the record, the certificates of title were reconstituted only on
    June 19,1984. 

    On June 25, 1984, DBP sought annotation on the reconstituted titles of the certificate of
    sale subject of Entry No. 8191 on the basis of that same four-year-old entry. The Acting
    Register of Deeds, being in doubt of the proper action to take on the solicitation, took
    the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration by consulta.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the instrument subject of primary entry is deemed registered from time
    noted pending annotation of memorandum thereof in the title?

    RULING

    Yes. An instrument subject of primary entry is deemed registered from time noted
    pending annotation of memorandum thereof in the title. Therefore, without necessarily
    holding that annotation of a primary entry on the original of the certificate of title may be
    deferred indefinitely without prejudice to the legal effect of said entry, the Court rules
    that in the particular situation here obtaining, annotation of the disputed entry on the
    reconstituted originals of the certificates of title to which it refers is entirely proper and
    justified. To hold said entry "ineffective," as does the appealed resolution, amounts to
    declaring that it did not, and does not, protect the registrant (DBP) from claims arising,
    or transactions made, thereafter which are adverse to or in derogation of the rights
    created or conveyed by the transaction thus entered. That, surely, is a result that is
    neither just nor can, by any reasonable interpretation of Section 56 of PD 1529, be
    asserted as warranted by its terms.

    You might also like