Legarda vs.

Saleeby ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and the land
occupied by it?
FACTS: The plaintiffs and the defendant occupy, as HELD: The decision of the lower court is based upon
owners, adjoining lots in the district of Ermita in the the theory that the action for the registration of the lot
city of Manila. There exists and has existed a number of the defendant was a judicial proceeding and that
of years a stone wall between the said lots. Said the judgment or decree was binding upon all parties
wall is located on the lot of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who did not appear and oppose it
March 2, 1906, presented a petition in the Court of Granting that theory to be correct one , then the same
Land Registration for the registration of their lot, which theory should be applied to the defendant himself.
decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should be Applying that theory to him, he had already lost
registered and issued to them the original certificate whatever right he had therein, by permitting the
provided for under the Torrens system. Said plaintiffs to have the same registered in their name,
registration and certificate included the wall. more than six years before. Having thus lost hid right,
Later the predecessor of the defendant presented a may he be permitted to regain it by simply including it
petition in the Court of Land Registration for the in a petition for registration?
registration of the lot now occupied by him. On March
25, 1912, the court decreed the registration of said For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act
title and issued the original certificate provided for (No. 496) provides for the registration of titles under
under the Torrens system. The description of the lot the Torrens system affords us no remedy. There is no
given in the petition of the defendant also provision in said Act giving the parties relief under
included said wall. conditions like the present. There is nothing in the Act
On December 13, 1912 the plaintiffs discovered that which indicates who should be the owner of land which
the wall which had been included in the certificate has been registered in the name of two different
granted to them had also been included in the persons.
certificate granted to the defendant .They immediately
presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration We have decided, in case of double registration
for an adjustment and correction of the error under the Land Registration Act, that the owner
committed by including said wall in the registered title of the earliest certificate is the owner of the
of each of said parties. land. May this rule be applied to successive vendees
The lower court however, without notice to the of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or
defendant, denied said petition upon the theory the other of the parties, before the error is discovered,
that, during the pendency of the petition for the transfers his original certificate to an “innocent
registration of the defendant’s land, they failed to purchaser.” The general rule is that the vendee of land
make any objection to the registration of said lot, has no greater right, title, or interest than his vendor;
including the wall, in the name of the defendant. that he acquires the right which his vendor had, only.
 registered owners of the land. In their answer, the
Under that rule the vendee of the earlier defendents claimed that the lots were part of the
certificate would be the owner as against the public domain and could not have been registered
vendee of the owner of the later certificate. under the Torrens system. All alleged long and
It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two continuous possession of the lots and produced tax
persons have acquired equal rights in the same thing, declarations in their names. Two of them maintained
to hold that the one who acquired it first and who has that they had acquired their respective lots by virtue
complied with all the requirements of the law should of valid contracts of sale. Another based her claim on
be protected. inheritance.
After trial, Judge Nicias O. Mendoza of the Regional
In view of our conclusions, above stated, the Trial Court of Olongapo City rendered judgment in
judgment of the lower court should be and is favor of the plaintiffs.[1]He held in part as follows:
hereby revoked. The record is hereby returned to the
court now having and exercising the jurisdiction The plaintiffs, being the registered owners in
heretofore exercised by the land court, with direction fee simple of the land in question, necessarily
to make such orders and decrees in the premises as have the lawful right to the physical
may correct the error heretofore made in including the possession of the land. The owner of a land
land in the second original certificate issued in favor of has a right to enjoy and possess it, and he
the predecessor of the appellee, as well as in all other has also the right to recover and repossess
duplicate certificates issued. the same from any person occupying it
unlawfully.
BISHOP V. CA
The question presented in this case is not novel. As in Art. 428 - New Civil Code: "The owner has the
previous cases resolving the same issue, the answer right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without
will not change. other limitations than those established by law.
In dispute are certain portions of a parcel of land "The owner has also a right of action against the
situated in Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, with a total holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover
area of 1,652 square meters. These portions are in the it." There is, therefore, no doubt in law, that the
possession of the petitioners. The entire parcel is plaintiffs being the registered owners of the land in
registered in the name of the private respondents question have also the corresponding right to the
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-29018. recovery and possession of the same.
On January 22, 1985, the private respondents sued the The defendants who are in physical occupancy of the
petitioners for recovery of possession of the lots in land belonging to the plaintiffs have no right
question. The plaintiffs invoked their rights aswhatsoever to unjustly withhold the possession of the
said land from the plaintiffs. The defendants' possession of the same to the titled owners,
occupancy of the land in question is unlawful and in the herein plaintiffs.
violation of plaintiffs' right to the recovery and
possession of the land they owned. On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the
respondent court on August 22, 1988.[2]
The evidence presented by the defendants claiming as
per certifications of the Bureau of Forestry that the
land occupied by them is within the alienable and Their motion for reconsideration having been denied,
disposable public land, deserves scant consideration the petitioners then came to this Court, urging
as the said certification are without basis in law. The reversal of the courts below.
moment the land in question was titled in the name of
the plaintiffs, it ceased to become a part of the public They allege that:
domain as the same became the private property of 1. The land in question is part of the public
the registered owner, the herein plaintiffs. Tax domain and could not have been validly
declarations of the land made in the names of the registered under the Torrens system.
defendants are not evidence of title, it appearing that
the land is already titled to the plaintiffs. The 2. The petitioners have acquired title to their
registration of the land in the names of the defendants respective lots by laches.
with the Assessor's Office for taxation purposes and
the payments of real property taxes by the defendants 3. In the alternative, they should be
can not and does not defeat the title of the plaintiffs to considered builders in good faith entitled to
the land. The fact that the defendants have been in the rights granted by Articles 448, 546, 547
occupancy of the land in question for quite a period of and 548 of the Civil Code.
time is of no moment as prescription will not ripen into
ownership because the land is covered by a torrens The petition has no merit.
title. Acquisitive prescription will not be available to On the first ground, the Court notes that the private
land titled under Art. 496. respondents' title is traceable to an Original Certificate
PREMISED THEREFORE on the foregoing of Title issued way back in 1910 or eighty-two years
consideration, the Court finds and so holds ago. That certificate is now incontrovertible and
that the plaintiffs being the registered owners conclusive against the whole world.
of the land in question are entitled to the The presumption of regularity applies to the issuance
possession of the same, and that the of that certificate. This presumption covers the finding
defendants who are occupying the land that the land subject of the certificate was private in
belonging to the plaintiffs in violation of the nature and therefore registrable under the Torrens
right of the latter, are duty-bound to restore system.
To sustain an action for annulment of a Torrens aware of the petitioners' occupation of the property,
certificate for being void ab initio, it must be shown and regardless of the length of that possession, the
that the registration court had not acquired jurisdiction lawful owners have a right to demand the return of
over the case and that there was actual fraud in their property at any time as long as the possession
securing the title.Neither of these requirements has was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This
beenestablished by the petitioners. All they submitted right is never barred by laches.
was the certification of the Bureau of Forestry that the In urging laches against the private respondents for
land in question was alienable and disposable public not protesting their long and continuous occupancy of
land. The trial court was correct in ruling that this the lots in question, the petitioners are in effect
deserved scant consideration for lack of legal basis. To contending that they have acquired the said lots by
be sure, a certification from an administrative body acquisitive prescription. It is an elementary principle
cannot prevail against a court decision declaring the that the owner of a land registered under the Torrens
land to be registrable. system cannot lose it by prescription.[5]
Significantly, it does not appear in the record that the As the Court observed in the early case Legarda v.
Director of Forestry, or any other representative of the Saleeby:[6]
Government for that matter, entered any opposition to
the land registration proceedings that led to the The real purpose of the Torrens system of land
issuance of the Original Certificate of Title. No less registration is to quiet title to land; to
importantly, an action to invalidate a certificate of title put astop forever to any question of the
on the ground of fraud prescribes after the expiration legality of the title, except claims which
of one (1) year from the entry of the decree of were noted at the time of registration in
registration[4] and cannot now be resorted to by the the certificate, or which may arise subsequent
petitioners at this late hour. And collaterally at that. thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it
would seem that once the title was registered,
The strange theory submitted by the petitioners that the owner may rest secure, without the
the owner of registered land must also possess it does necessity of waiting in the portals of the
not merit serious attention. The non-presentation by court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa,"
the private respondents of their tax declarations on to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
the land is no indication that they have never acquired
ownership thereof or have lost it by such omission. Applied consistently these many years, this doctrine
The second ground must also be rejected. has been burnished bright with use and has long
become a settled rule of law.
As registered owners of the lots in question, the
private respondents have a right to eject any person In light of the observations already made, it is obvious
illegally occupying their property. This right is that the petitioners cannot invoke the status of
imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were builders in good faith to preserve their claimed rights
to the constructions they have made on the lots in dated August 28, 1984 denying the motion for
dispute. reconsideration filed thereof.
A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any
flaw in his title to the land at the time he builds on it. The undisputed facts of this case as found by the trial
[7] This definition cannot apply to the petitioners Court and the Intermediate Appellate Court are as
because they knew at the very outset that they had no follows:
right at all to occupy the subject lots.
On December 2, 1971, the spouses Paulino Vivas and
The petitioners have consistently insisted that the lots Engracia Lizardo, as owners of a parcel of land situa-
were part of the public domain and even submitted a ted in Bo. San Francisco, Victoria, Laguna, comprising
certification to that effect from the Bureau of Forestry. more or less 105,710 square meters, sold for
The land was in fact registered under the Torrens P30,000.00 said property in favor of spouses Melencio
system and such registration was constructive notice Magcamit and Nena Cosico, and Amelita Magcamit
to the whole world, including the petitioners. (herein private respondents) as evidenced by
Apparently, the petitioners did not take the trouble of "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Mabibiling Muli".
checking such registration. At any rate, the point is
that, whether the land be public or private, the This sale with right to repurchase was recorded in the
petitioners knew they had no right to occupy it and Office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna on
build on it. The Court of Appeals was correct in calling December 6, 1971 under Act No. 3344. On January 31,
them squatters for having entered, without permission 1972 the sale was made absolute by the spouses
or authority, land that did not belong to them. Vivas and Lizardo in favor of the private respondents
for the sum of P90,000.00; P50,000.00 of which was
In urging reversal of the trial court and the respondent paid upon the execution of the instrument, entitled
court, the petitioners are asking us to overturn long "Kasulatan Ng Bilihan Tuluyan", after being credited
established doctrines guaranteeing the integrity of the with the P30,000.00 consideration of the "Kasulatan
Torrens system and the indefeasibility of titles issued Ng Mabibiling Muli", and the balance of P40,000.00
thereunder for the protection and peace of mind of the was to be paid the moment that the certificate of title,
registered owner against illegal encroachments upon is issued.
his property. We are not disposed to take this drastic
step on the basis alone of their feeble arguments. From the execution of said Kasulatan, private
respondent have remained in peaceful, adverse and
NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY V. IAC open possession of subject property.
This is a petition for review of the decision of the then On February 26, 1975, an Original Certificate of Title
Intermediate Appellate Court* (now Court of Appeals) No. T-1728 covering the property in question was
dated January 31, 1984, reversing the decision of the issued to and in the name of the spouses Vivas and
Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, Lizardo without the knowledge of the private respond-
8th Judicial District, Branch III, and of the resolution
ents and on April 30, 1975, said Spouses executed a the terms of the absolute deed of sale but the
Special Power of Attorney in favor of Irenea Ramirez petitioner refused to accept the payment. On July 31,
authorizing the latter to mortgage the property with 1974, counsel for private respondents made a formal
the petitioner, National Grains Authority. demand on the spouses Vivas and Lizardo to comply
with their obligation under the terms of the absolute
On May 2, 1974, the counsel for the petitioner wrote deed of sale; and soon after reiterated to the NGA, the
the Provincial Sheriff in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, requesting offer to pay the balance of P40,000.00 due under the
for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage absolute deed of sale.
executed by Irenea Ramirez on May 18, 1975,
covering, among others, the property involved in this On August 13, 1974 petitioner in its reply informed
case covered by OCT No. T-1728, for unpaid indebted- counsel of private respondents that petitioner is now
ness in the amount of P63,948.80 in favor of the pe- the owner of the property in question and has no
titioner. intention of disposing of the same.
On May 31, 1974, the Provincial Sheriff caused the
issuance of the notice of sale of the property in The private respondents, who as previously stated, are
question, scheduling the public auction sale on June in possession of subject property were asked by
28, 1974. The petitioner was the highest and success- petitioner to vacate it but the former refused. Peti-
ful bidder so that a Certificate of Sale was issued in its tioner filed a suit for ejectment against private res-
favor on the same date by the Provincial Sheriff. pondents in the Municipal Court of Victoria, Laguna,
but the case was dismissed.
On July 10, 1974, the petitioner in its capacity as
attorney-in-fact of the mortgagor sold the subject real
On June 4, 1975, private respondents filed a complaint
property in favor of itself. By virtue of the deed ofbefore the then Court of First Instance of Laguna and
absolute sale, TCT No. T-75171 of the Register of San Pablo City, Branch III, San Pablo City, against the
Deeds for the Province of Laguna was issued in the petitioner and the spouses Vivas and Lizardo, praying,
name of the petitioner on July 16, 1974. It was only in
among others, that they be declared the owners of the
July 1974, that private respondents learned that a title
property in question and entitled to continue in
in the name of the Vivas spouses had been issued possession of the same, and if the petitioner is
covering the property in question and that the same declared the owner of the said property, then, to order
property had been mortgaged in favor of the it to reconvey or transfer the ownership to them under
petitioner. such terms and conditions as the court may find just,
Private respondent Nena Magcamit offered to pay the fair and equitable under the premises. (Record on
petitioner NGA the amount of P40,000.00 which is the Appeal, pp. 2-11).
balance of the amount due the Vivas spouses under
In its answer to the complaint, the petitioner fees, an additional amount of P10,000.00 as
(defendant therein) maintained that it was never a moral damages, another amount of P5,000.00
privy to any transaction between the private by way of exemplary damages and to pay the
respondents (plaintiffs therein) and the spouses costs of this suit." (Rollo, p. 35).
Paulino Vivas and Engracia Lizardo; that it is a
purchases in good faith and for value of the property The private respondents interposed an appeal from
formerly covered by OCT No. 1728; and that the title is the decision of the trial court to the Intermediate
now indefeasible, hence, private respondents' cause of APELLATE COURT.
action has already prescribed. (Record on Appeal, pp. After proper proceedings, the appellate court rendered
16-22). its decision on January 31, 1984, reversing and setting
aside the decision of the trial court as follows:
After due hearing, the trial court* rendered its decision "WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court
on March 17, 1981, in favor of the petitioner, the is hereby reversed and set aside and another
dispositive portion of said judgment reading as one is rendered ordering the National Grains
follows: Authority to execute a deed of reconveyance
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sufficient in law for purposes of registration
as follows: and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-75171 and the issuance of another title
"(1) declaring defendant National Grains in the names of plaintiffs-appellants, and
Authority the lawful owner of the property in ordering defendants-appellees Paulino Vivas
question by virtue of its indefeasible title to and Engracia Lizardo to pay the National
the same; Grains Authority the sum of P78,375.00 (Exh.
3) within thirty (30) days from the receipt of
"(2) ordering plaintiffs to turn over possession the writ of execution. No damages and costs."
of the land to defendant National Grains (Rollo, p. 19).
Authority;
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
"(3) ordering defendants-spouses Paulino said decision but the same was denied. (Rollo, p. 26).
Vivas and Engracia Lizardo to pay plaintiffs
the sum of P56,000.00 representing the Hence, this petition.
amount paid pursuant to the Kasulatan Ng
Bilihang Tuluyan marked Exhibit '3', with legal In the resolution of May 20, 1985, the petition was
interest thereon from January 31, 1972 until given due course and the parties were required to
the amount is paid, to pay an additional submit simultaneous memoranda (Rollo, p. 128). The
amount of P5,000.00 for and as attorney's memorandum for the petitioner was filed on July 3,
1985 (Rollo, p. 129) while the memorandum for the better right than private respondents and that the
private respondents was filed on August 26, 1985 deed of absolute sale with the suspensive condition is
(Rollo, p. 192). not registered and is necessarily binding only on the
spouses Vivas and Lizardo and private respondents.
The main issue in this case is whether or not violation
of the terms of the agreement between the spouses In their complaint at the Regional Trial Court, private
Vivas and Lizardo, the sellers, and private respondents prayed among others, for two alternative
respondents, the buyers, to deliver the certificate of reliefs, such as: (a) to be declared the owners of the
title to the latter, upon its issuance, constitutes a property in question or (b) to order the declared owner
breach of trust sufficient to defeat the title and right to reconvey or transfer the ownership of the property
acquired by petitioner NGA, an innocent purchaser for in their favor.
value.
Private respondents claim a better right to the
It is undisputed that: (1) there are two deeds of sale of property in question by virtue of the Conditional Sale,
the same land in favor of private respondents, namely: later changed to a deed of Absolute Sale which
(a) the conditional sale with right to repurchase or the although unregistered under the Torrens System
"Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Mabibiling Muli" which was allegedly transferred to them the ownership and the
registered under Act 3344 and (b) the deed of possession of the property in question. In fact, they
absolute sale or "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan" which argue that they have been and are still in possession
was not registered; (2) the condition that the of the same openly, continuously, publicly under a
Certificate of Title will be delivered to the buyers upon claim of ownership adverse to all other claims since
its issuance and upon payment of the balance of the purchase on December 2, 1971 (Rollo, p. 165). It is
P40,000.00 is contained in the deed of absolute sale; stressed that not until the month of July, 1974 did the
and (3) the land in question at the time of the plaintiff learn that a title had been issued covering the
execution of both sales was not yet covered by the property in question (Rollo, p. 15).
Torrens System of registration.
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the
It is axiomatic, that while the registration of the proceedings for the registration of title to land under
conditional sale with right of repurchase may be the Torrens System is an action in rem, not in
binding on third persons, it is by provision of law personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of
"understood to be without prejudice to third party who the res is not necessary in order that the court may
has better right" (Section 194 of the Administrative have jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res.
Code, as amended by Act No. 3344). In this case, it will Neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or
be noted that the third party NGA, is a registered invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration
owner under the Torrens System and has obviously a proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over the land
situated within it, may provide for the adjudication of Moreover, no title to registered land in derogation to
title in a proceeding in rem or one in the nature of or that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
akin a proceeding in rem which shall be binding upon prescription or adverse possession (Umbay vs.
all persons, known or unknown (Moscoso vs. Court of Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 [1985]).
Appeals, 128 SCRA 719 [1984], citing: City of Manila
vs. Lack, et al., 19 Phil. 324, 337; Roxas vs. Enriquez, It does not appear that private respondents' claim falls
29 Phil. 31; Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic under any of the exceptions provided for under
Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil. 120; Aguilar vs. Section 44 of P.D. 1529 which can be enforced against
Caogdan, 105 Phil. 661). It is thus evident that petitioner herein.
respondents' right over the property was barred by res
judicata when the decree of registration was issued to Thus, it has been invariably restated by this Court,
spouses Vivas and Lizardo. It does not matter that that "The real purpose of the Torrens System is to
they may have had some right even the right of quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as
ownership, BEFORE the grant of the Torrens Title. to its legality. 'Once a title is registered, the owner
may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in
Thus, under Section 44 of P.D. 1529, every registered the portals of the court, or sitting on the 'mirador su
owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a casa', to avoid the possibility of losing his land'." An
decree of registration, and every subsequent indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not
purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title allowed (Dominga vs. Santos, 55 Phil. 361; Singian vs.
for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free Manila Railroad, 62 Phil. 467).
from all encumbrances except those noted on the
certificate and any of the encumbrances which may be The only exception to this rule is where a person
subsisting, and enumerated in the law. Under said obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to
provision, claims and liens of whatever character, another and he has full knowledge of the rights of the
except those mentioned by law as existing, against true owner. He is then considered as guilty of fraud
the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title, are and he may be compelled to transfer the land to the
cut off by such certificate if not noted thereon, and the defrauded owner so long as the property has not
certificate so issue binds the whole world, including passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for
the government (Aldecoa and Co. vs. Warner Barns & value (Angeles vs. Samia, 66 Phil. 444 [1938],
Co., 30 Phil. 209 [1915]; Snyder vs. Fiscal of Cebu and underscoring supplied).
Avila, 42 Phil. 766 [1922]). Under said ruling, if the
purchaser is the only party who appears in the deeds It will be noted that the spouses Vivas and Lizardo
and the registration of titles in the property registry, never committed any fraud in procuring the regis-
no one except such purchaser may be deemed by law tration of the property in question. On the contrary,
to be the owner of the properties in question (Ibid). their application for registration which resulted in the
issuance of OCT No. 1728 was with the complete any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or
knowledge and implied authority of private any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not
respondents who retained a portion of the required to explore further than what the torrens title
consideration until the issuance to said spouses of a upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect
certificate of title applied for under the Torrens Act and or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his
the corresponding delivery of said title to them. The right thereto (Centeno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA
question therefore, is not about the validity of OCT No. 545 [1985]).
1728 but in the breach of contract between private
respondents and the Vivas spouses. Petitioner NGA More specifically, the Court has ruled that a bank is
was never a privy to this transaction. Neither was it not required before accepting a mortgage to make an
shown that it had any knowledge at the time of the investigation of the title of the property being given as
execution of the mortgage, of the existence of the security (Phil. National Cooperative Bank vs.
suspensive condition in the deed of absolute sale, Carandang-Villalon, 139 SCRA 570 [1985]), and where
much less of its violation. Nothing appeared to excite innocent third persons like mortgagees relying on the
suspicion. The Special Power of Attorney was regular certificate of title acquire rights over the property,
on its face; the OCT was in the name of the mortgagor their rights cannot be disregarded (Duran vs. IAC, 138
and the NGA was the highest bidder in the public SCRA 489 [1985]).
auction. Unquestionably, therefore, the NGA is an
innocent purchaser for value, first as an innocent Under the circumstances, the Regional Trial Court
mortgages under Section 32 of P.D. 1529 and later as could not have erred in ruling that plaintiffs' (private
innocent purchaser for value in the public auction sale. respondents herein) complaint insofar as it prays that
they be declared owners of the land in question can
Private respondents claim that NGA did not even field not prosper in view of the doctrine of indefeasibility of
any representative to the land which was not even in title under the Torrens System, because it is an esta-
the possession of the supposed mortgagors, nor blished principle that a petition for review of the
present any witness to prove its allegations in the decree of registration will not prosper even if filed
ANSWER nor submit its DEED OF MORTGAGE to show within one year from the entry of the decree if the title
its being a mortgagee in good faith and for value has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
(Rollo, p. 110). for value (Pres. Decree No. 1529, Sec. 32). The setting
aside of the decree of registration issued in land
Such contention is, however, untenable. Well settled is registration proceedings is operative only between the
the rule that all persons dealing with property covered parties to the fraud and the parties defrauded and
by a torrens certificate of title are not required to go their privies, but not against acquirers in good faith
beyond what appears on the face of the title. When and for value and the successors in interest of the
there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate latter; as to them the decree shall remain in full force
and effect forever (Domingo vs. The Mayon Realty Complaint[7] for "Quieting of Title with Cancellation of
Corp. et al., 102 Phil. 32 [1957]). Assuming, therefore, TCT No. 200519 and all Titles derived thereat (sic),
that there was fraud committed by the sellers against Damages, with Petition for the Issuance of Injunction
the buyers in the instant case, petitioner NGA who was with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order Ex-
not privy therein cannot be made to suffer the Parte, Etc." against B.C. Regalado, Mar-Bay Realty,
consequences thereof. As correctly declared by the Inc., Spouses Gereno Brioso and Criselda M. Brioso,
trial court, the National Grains Authority is the lawful Spouses Ciriaco and Nellie Mariano, Avelino C. Perdido
owner of the property in question by virtue of its and Florentina Allado, Eufrocina A. Maborang and Fe
indefeasible title. Maborang, Spouses Jaime and Rosario Tabangcura,
Spouses Oscar Ikalina and the Register of Deeds (RD)
As to private respondents' alternative prayer that the of Quezon City. Subsequently, respondents filed an
declared owner be ordered to reconvey or transfer the Amended Complaint[8] and a Second Amended
ownership of the property in their favor, it is clear that Complaint[9] particularly impleading DBT as one of the
there is absolutely no reason why petitioner, an defendants.
innocent purchaser for value, should reconvey the
land to the private respondents. In the Complaints, Ricaredo alleged that he is the
lawful owner and claimant of the subject property
DBT MAR-BAY CONSTRUCTION V. PANES which he had declared for taxation purposes in his
Subject of this controversy is a parcel of land identified name, and assessed in the amount of P2,602,190.00
as Lot Plan Psu-123169,[4] containing an area by the City Assessor of Quezon City as of the year
of(240,146) square meters, and situated at Barangay 1985. Respondents alleged that per
(Brgy.) Pasong Putik, Novaliches, Quezon City (subject Certification[10] of the Department of Environment
property). The property is included in Transfer and Natural Resources (DENR) National Capital Region
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 200519,[5] entered on July (NCR) dated May 7, 1992, Lot Plan Psu-123169 was
19, 1974 and issued in favor of B.C. Regalado & Co. verified to be correct and on file in said office, and
(B.C. Regalado). It was conveyed by B.C. Regalado to approved on July 23, 1948.
petitioner D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction, Inc. (DBT)
through a dacion en pago[6 for services rendered by Respondents also claimed that Ricaredo, his
the latter to the former. immediate family members, and the other
respondents had been, and still are, in actual
On June 24, 1992, respondents Ricaredo P. Panes possession of the portions of the subject property, and
(Ricaredo), his son Angelito P. Panes (Angelito), their possession preceded the Second World War. To
Salvador Cea, Abogado Mautin, Donardo Paclibar, perfect his title in accordance with Act No. 496 (The
Zosimo P. Peralta, and Hilarion Manongdo (herein Land Registration Act) as amended by Presidential
collectively referred to as respondents) filed a Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 (The Property Registration
Decree), Ricaredo filed with the RTC of Quezon City, properties located far from Pasong Putik, Novaliches,
Branch 82 a case docketed as LRC Case No. Q-91-011, Quezon City where the subject property is located, and
with LRC Rec. No. N-62563.[11] B.C. Regalado and DBT then offered the same for sale
to the public. Respondents thus submitted that B.C
Respondents averred that in the process of complying Regalado and DBT through their deliberate scheme, in
with the publication requirements for the Notice of collusion with others, used (LRC) Pcs-18345 as shown
Initial Hearing with the Land Registration Authority in the consolidation-subdivision plan to include the
(LRA), it was discovered by the Mapping Services of subject property covered by Lot Plan Psu-123169.
the LRA that there existed an overlapping of portions
of the land subject of Ricaredo's application, with the In his Answer[18] dated July 24, 1992, the RD of
subdivision plan of B.C. Regalado. The said portion Quezon City interposed the defense that at the time of
had, by then, already been conveyed by B.C. Regalado registration, he found all documents to be in order.
to DBT. Subsequently, on December 5, 1994, in his
Motion[19] for Leave to Admit Amended Answer, with
Ricaredo asseverated that upon verification with the the Amended Answer attached, he admitted that he
LRA, he found that the subdivision plan of B.C. committed a grave mistake when he earlier said that
Regalado was deliberately drawn to cover portions of TCT No. 200519 covered only one lot, i.e. Lot 503. He
the subject property. Respondents claimed that the averred that upon careful examination, he discovered
title used by B.C. Regalado in the preparation of the that TCT No. 200519 is composed of 17 pages, and
subdivision plan did not actually cover the subject actually covered 54 lots, namely: Lots 503, 506, 507,
property. They asserted that from the records of B.C. 508, 509, 582, 586, 655, 659, 686, 434, 495, 497, 299,
Regalado, they gathered that TCT Nos. 211081, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 493, 692, 776, 496, 785, 777,
[12]211095[13] and 211132,[14] which allegedly 786, 780, 783, 505, 654, 660, 661, 663, 664, 665, 668,
included portions of the subject property, were derived 693, 694, 713, 716, 781, 779, 784, 782, 787, 893,
from TCT No. 200519. However, TCT No. 200519 only 1115, 1114, 778, 669 and 788, all of the Tala Estate.
covered Lot 503 of the Tala Estate with an area of Other lots included therein are Lot 890-B of Psd 36854,
Twenty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifteen (22,615) Lot 2 of (LRC) Pcs 12892 and Lot 3 of (LRC) Pcs 12892.
square meters, and was different from those Thus, respondents' allegation that Lots 661, 664, 665,
mentioned in TCT Nos. 211081, 211095 and 211132. 693 and 694 of the Tala Estate were not included in
According to respondents, an examination of TCT No. TCT No. 200519 was not true.
200519 would show that it was derived from TCT Nos.
14814,[15] 14827,[16] 14815[17] and T-28. On December 28, 1993, then defendants Spouses
Jaime and Rosario Tabangcura (Spouses Tabangcura)
In essence, respondents alleged that B.C. Regalado filed their Answer[20] with Counterclaim, claiming that
and DBT used the derivative titles which covered they were buyers in good faith and for value when
they bought a house and lot covered by TCT No. purposes;[24] and that the subject property per survey
211095 from B.C. Regalado, the latter being a should not have been included in TCT No. 200519,
subdivision developer and registered owner thereof, registered in the name of B.C. Regalado and ceded to
on June 30, 1986. When respondent Abogado Mautin DBT. The RTC further held that Spouses Tabangcura
entered and occupied the property, Spouses failed to present satisfactory evidence to prove their
Tabangcura filed a case for Recovery of Property claim. Thus, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97 which WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
rendered a decision[21] in their favor. considerations, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring Certificate of Title No. 200519 and
On its part, DBT, traversing the complaint, alleged that all titles derived thereat as null and void
it is the legitimate owner and occupant of the subject insofar as the same embrace the land
property pursuant to a dacion en pago executed by covered by Plan PSU-123169 with an area of
B.C. Regalado in the former's favor; that respondents 240,146 square meters in the name of
were not real parties-in-interests because Ricaredo Ricaredo Panes; ordering defendant DBT
was a mere claimant whose rights over the property Marbay Realty, Inc. to pay plaintiff Ricaredo
had yet to be determined by the RTC where he filed his Panes the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND
application for registration; that the other respondents (P20,000) pesos as attorney's fees plus costs
did not allege matters or invoke rights which would of suit.
entitle them to the relief
SO ORDERED.
prayed for in their complaint; that the complaint was
premature; and that the action inflicted a chilling On September 12, 2000, DBT filed a
effect on the lot buyers of DBT.[22] Motion[25] for Reconsideration, based on the
grounds of prescription and laches. DBT also
The RTC's Rulings
disputed Ricaredo's claim of open, adverse, and
On June 15, 2000, the RTC through Judge Marciano I.
continuous possession of the subject property for
Bacalla (Judge Bacalla), rendered a Decision[23] in
more than thirty (30) years, and asserted that the
favor of the respondents. The RTC held that the
subject property could not be acquired by
testimony of Ricaredo that he occupied the subject
prescription or adverse possession because it is
property since 1936 when he was only 16 years old
covered by TCT No. 200519.
had not been rebutted; that Ricaredo's occupation and
cultivation of the subject property for more than thirty
While the said Motion for Reconsideration was
(30) years in the concept of an owner vested in him
pending, Judge Bacalla passed away.
equitable ownership over the same by virtue of an
approved plan, Psu 123169; that the subject property
Meanwhile, on January 2, 2001, a Motion[26] for
was declared under the name of Ricaredo for taxation
Intervention and a Complaint in Intervention were true copy of the TCT on August 21, 2001.
filed by Atty. Andres B. Pulumbarit (Atty. [33] Respondents moved to reconsider the said
Pulumbarit), representing the Don Pedro/Don Jose directive[34] but the same was denied.[35] DBT,
de Ocampo Estate. The intervenor alleged that on the other hand, manifested that a copy of TCT
the subject property formed part of the vast tract No. 200519, consisting of 17 pages, had already
of land with an area of 117,000 hectares, covered been admitted in evidence; and that because of
by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 779 the fire in the Office of the RD in Quezon City
issued by the Honorable Norberto Romualdez on sometime in 1988, DBT, despite diligent effort,
March 14, 1913 under Decree No. 10139, which could not secure an original or certified true copy
belongs to the Estate of Don Pedro/Don Jose de of said TCT. Instead, DBT submitted a certified
Ocampo. Thus, the Complaint[27] in Intervention true copy of Consolidated Subdivision Plan Pcs
prayed that the RTC's Decision be reconsidered; 18345.[36]
that the legitimacy and superiority of OCT 779 be
upheld; and that the subject property be declared On November 8, 2001, the RTC, through Judge
as belonging to the Estate of Don Pedro/Don Jose Juanson, issued an Order[37] reversing the earlier
de Ocampo. RTC Decision and dismissing the Complaint for
lack of merit. The RTC held that prescription does
In its Order[28] dated March 13, 2001, the RTC, not run against registered land; hence, a title once
through Acting Judge Modesto C. Juanson (Judge registered cannot be defeated even by adverse,
Juanson), denied Atty. Pulumbarit's Motion for open or notorious possession. Moreover, the RTC
Intervention because a judgment had already opined that even if the subject property could be
been rendered pursuant to Section 2,[29] Rule 19 acquired by prescription, respondents' action was
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. already barred by prescription and/or laches
because they never asserted their rights when
On April 10, 2001, the RTC issued an B.C. Regalado registered the subject property in
Order[30] stating that there appeared to be a 1974; and later developed, subdivided and sold
need for a clarificatory hearing before it could act the same to individual lot buyers.
on DBT's Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, a
hearing was held on May 17, 2001. Thereafter, On December 18, 2001, respondents filed a
supplemental memoranda were required of the Motion for Reconsideration[38] which the RTC
parties.[31] Both parties complied.[32] However, denied in its Order[39] dated June 17, 2002.
having found that the original copy of TCT No. Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the CA.[40]
200519 was not submitted to it for comparison
with the photocopy thereof on file, the RTC The CA's Ruling
directed DBT to present the original or certified On October 25, 2004, the CA reversed and set aside
the RTC Orders dated November 8, 2001 and June 17, TCT NO. 200519 AFTER THE DECISION ON THE
2002 and reinstated the RTC Decision dated June 15, MERITS HAS BEEN RENDERED BUT BEFORE IT
2000. The CA held that the properties described and BECAME FINAL.
included in TCT No. 200519 are located in San III. A REGISTERED LAND CAN NOT BE
Francisco del Monte, San Juan del Monte, Rizal and ACQUIRED BY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION.
Cubao, Quezon City while the subject property is
located in Brgy. Pasong Putik, Novaliches, Quezon City.
Furthermore, the CA held that Engr. Vertudazo's
testimony that there is a gap of around 1,250 meters IV.THE TESTIMONY OF ENGR. VERTUDAZO ON
between Lot 503 and Psu 123169 was not disproved or THE BASIS OF THE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
refuted. The CA found that Judge Juanson committed a OF LOT 503 IN AN INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT IS
procedural infraction when he entertained issues and UNRELIABLE.
admitted evidence presented by DBT in its Motion for V. MR. PANES HAS NEVER BEEN IN OPEN,
Reconsideration which were never raised in the ADVERSE AND CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF
pleadings and proceedings prior to the rendition of the THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN
RTC Decision. The CA opined that DBT's claims of THIRTY (30) YEARS.[44]
laches and prescription clearly appeared to be an
afterthought. Lastly, the CA held that DBT's Motion for Distilled from the petition and the responsive
Reconsideration was not based on grounds pleadings, and culled from the arguments of the
enumerated in the Rules of Procedure.[41] parties, the issues may be reduced to two questions,
namely:
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[42] which
was, however, denied by the CA in its 1) Did the RTC err in upholding DBT's defenses of
Resolution[43] dated February 22, 2005. prescription and laches as raised in the latter's Motion
for Reconsideration?
Hence, this Petition.
The Issues 2) Which between DBT and the respondents have a
Petitioner raises the following as grounds for this better right over the subject property?
Petition: Our Ruling
I. PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO ALLEGE We answer the first question in the affirmative.
PRESCRIPTION IN ITS ANSWER IS NOT A
WAIVER OF SUCH DEFENSE. It is true that in Dino v. Court of Appeals[45] we ruled:
II. IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS TO REQUIRE THE (T)rial courts have authority and discretion to
PRODUCTION OF A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF dismiss an action on the ground of
 prescription when the parties' pleadings or to reverse itself, especially when in its opinion it has
other facts on record show it to be indeed committed an error or mistake in judgment, and
time-barred; (Francisco v. Robles, Feb. 15, adherence to its decision would cause injustice.
1954; Sison v. McQuaid, 50 O.G. 97; Bambao [46] Thus, the RTC in its Order dated November 8,
v. Lednicky, Jan. 28, 1961; Cordova v. 2001 could validly entertain the defenses of
Cordova, Jan. 14, 1958; Convets, Inc. v. NDC, prescription and laches in DBT's motion for
Feb. 28, 1958; 32 SCRA 529; Sinaon v. reconsideration.
Sorongan, 136 SCRA 408); and it may do so
on the basis of a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1, [f] However, the conclusion reached by the RTC in its
Rule 16, Rules of Court), or an answer which assailed Order was erroneous. The RTC failed to
sets up such ground as an affirmative defense consider that the action filed before it was not simply
(Sec. 5, Rule 16), or even if the ground is for reconveyance but an action for quieting of title
alleged after judgment on the merits, as which is imprescriptible.
in a motion for reconsideration (Ferrer v.
Ericta, 84 SCRA 705); or even if the defense Verily, an action for reconveyance can be barred by
has not been asserted at all, as where prescription. When an action for reconveyance is
no statement thereof is found in the based on fraud, it must be filed within four (4) years
pleadings (Garcia v. Mathis, 100 SCRA from discovery of the fraud, and such discovery is
250; PNB v. Pacific Commission House, 27 deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the
SCRA 766; Chua Lamco v. Dioso, et al., 97 original certificate of title. On the other hand, an
Phil. 821); or where a defendant has been action for reconveyance based on an implied or
declared in default (PNB v. Perez; 16 SCRA constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the
270). What is essential only, to repeat, is date of the issuance of the original certificate of title
that the facts demonstrating the lapse or transfer certificate of title. The rule is that the
of the prescriptive period be otherwise registration of an instrument in the Office of the RD
sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent constitutes constructive notice to the whole world and
on the record; either in the averments of therefore the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have
the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise taken place at the time of registration.[47]
established by the evidence. (Emphasis
supplied) However, the prescriptive period applies only if there
is an actual need to reconvey the property as when
the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. If the
Indeed, one of the inherent powers of courts is to plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains
amend and control its processes so as to make them in possession of the property, the prescriptive period
conformable to law and justice. This includes the right to recover title and possession of the property does
not run against him. In such a case, an action for property and that Angelito bought a house within
reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, would be in the the subject property in 1987.[50] Thus, the
nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action that is respondents are proper parties to bring an action
imprescriptible.[48] Thus, in Vda. de Gualberto v. Go, for quieting of title because persons having legal,
[49] this Court held: as well as equitable, title to or interest in a real
[A]n action for reconveyance of a parcel of property may bring such action, and "title" here
land based on implied or constructive trust does not necessarily denote a certificate of title
prescribes in ten years, the point of reference issued in favor of the person filing the suit.[51]
being the date of registration of the deed or
the date of the issuance of the certificate of Although prescription and laches are distinct
title over the property, but this rule applies concepts, we have held, nonetheless, that in some
only when the plaintiff or the person instances, the doctrine of laches is inapplicable
enforcing the trust is not in possession where the action was filed within the prescriptive
of the property, since if a person claiming period provided by law. Therefore, laches will not
to be the owner thereof is in actual apply to this case, because respondents'
possession of the property, as the defendants possession of the subject property has rendered
are in the instant case, the right to seek their right to bring an action for quieting of title
reconveyance, which in effect seeks to imprescriptible and, hence, not barred by laches.
quiet title to the property, does not Moreover, since laches is a creation of equity, acts
prescribe. The reason for this is that one or conduct alleged to constitute the same must be
who is in actual possession of a piece of land intentional and unequivocal so as to avoid
claiming to be the owner thereof may wait injustice. Laches will operate not really to penalize
until his possession is disturbed or his title is neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to
attacked before taking steps to vindicate his avoid recognizing a right when to do so would
right, the reason for the rule being, that his result in a clearly inequitable situation.[52]
undisturbed possession gives him a
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of Albeit the conclusion of the RTC in its Order dated
equity to ascertain and determine the nature November 8, 2001, which dismissed respondents'
of the adverse claim of a third party and its complaint on grounds of prescription and laches,
effect on his own title, which right can be may have been erroneous, we, nevertheless,
claimed only by one who is in possession. resolve the second question in favor of DBT.

Insofar as Ricaredo and his son, Angelito, are It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that
concerned, they established in their testimonies no title to registered land in derogation of the
that, for some time, they possessed the subject rights of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.[53] ample proof that DBT participated in the alleged
fraud. While factual issues are admittedly not
Article 1126[54] of the Civil Code in connection within the province of this Court, as it is not a trier
with Section 46[55] of Act No. 496 (The Land of facts and is not required to re-examine or
Registration Act), as amended by Section contrast the oral and documentary evidence
47[56] of P.D. No. 1529 (The Property Registration anew, we have the authority to review and, in
Decree), clearly supports this rule. Prescription is proper cases, reverse the factual findings of lower
unavailing not only against the registered owner courts when the findings of fact of the trial court
but also against his hereditary successors. are in conflict with those of the appellate court.
Possession is a mere consequence of ownership [59] In this regard, we reviewed the records of this
where land has been registered under the Torrens case and found no clear evidence that DBT
system, the efficacy and integrity of which must participated in the fraudulent scheme. In Republic
be protected. Prescription is rightly regarded as a v. Court of Appeals,[60] this Court gave due
statute of repose whose objective is to suppress importance to the fact that the private respondent
fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at therein did not participate in the fraud averred.
great distances of time and surprising the parties We accord the same benefit to DBT in this case. To
or their representatives when the facts have add, DBT is an innocent purchaser for value and
become obscure from the lapse of time or the good faith which, through a dacion en pago duly
defective memory or death or removal of entered into with B.C. Regalado, acquired
witnesses.[57] ownership over the subject property, and whose
rights must be protected under Section 32[61] of
Thus, respondents' claim of acquisitive P.D. No. 1529.
prescription over the subject property is baseless.
Under Article 1126 of the Civil Code, acquisitive Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of
prescription of ownership of lands registered ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor
under the Land Registration Act shall be governed as an accepted equivalent of the performance of
by special laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496, as the obligation. It is a special mode of payment
amended by PD No. 1529, provides that no title to where the debtor offers another thing to the
registered land in derogation of that of the creditor, who accepts it as an equivalent of the
registered owner shall be acquired by adverse payment of an outstanding debt. In its modern
possession. Consequently, in the instant case, concept, what actually takes place in dacion en
proof of possession by the respondents is pago is an objective novation of the obligation
immaterial and inconsequential.[58] where the thing offered as an accepted equivalent
of the performance of an obligation is considered
Moreover, it may be stressed that there was no as the object of the contract of sale, while the
debt is considered as the purchase price.[62] to have regularly performed their duties.
[64] Thus, where innocent third persons, relying
It must also be noted that portions of the subject on the correctness of the certificate of title thus
property had already been sold to third persons issued, acquire rights over the property, the court
who, like DBT, are innocent purchasers in good cannot disregard those rights and order the
faith and for value, relying on the certificates of cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such
title shown to them, and who had no knowledge of outright cancellation will be to impair public
any defect in the title of the vendor, or of facts confidence in the certificate of title. The sanctity
sufficient to induce a reasonably prudent man to of the Torrens system must be preserved;
inquire into the status of the subject property. otherwise, everyone dealing with the property
[63] To disregard these circumstances simply on registered under the system will have to inquire in
the basis of alleged continuous and adverse every instance on whether the title had been
possession of respondents would not only be regularly or irregularly issued, contrary to the
inimical to the rights of the aforementioned evident purpose of the law. Every person dealing
titleholders, but would ultimately wreak havoc on with the registered land may safely rely on the
the stability of the Torrens system of registration. correctness of the certificate of title issued
therefor, and the law will in no way oblige him to
A final note. go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property.[65]
While the Torrens system is not a mode of
acquiring title, but merely a system of registration WHEREFORE, the instant Petition
of titles to lands, justice and equity demand that is GRANTED and the assailed Court of Appeals
the titleholder should not be made to bear the Decision dated October 25, 2004 is
unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new
the State's agents, in the absence of proof of his judgment is hereby entered DISMISSING the
complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to Complaint filed by the respondents for lack of
third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens merit.
system is to quiet title to land and put a stop
forever to any question as to the legality of the
title, except claims that were noted in the
certificate at the time of the registration or that BARANDA V. GUSTILO
may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia were the
integrity of the Torrens system would forever be petitioners in G. R. No. 64432 and the private
sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land respondents in G. R. No. 62042. The subject matter of
registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed these two (2) cases and the instant case is the same a
parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the as G. R. No. 62042 before the Supreme Court.
Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo covered by As earlier stated the petition was denied in a
Original Certificate of Title No 6406. resolution dated January 7, 1983. The motion
for reconsideration was denied in another
The present petition arose from the same facts and resolution dated March 25, 1983, which also
events which triggered the filing of the earlier stated that the denial is final. This decision in
petitions. These facts and events are cited in our G. R. No. 62042, in accordance with the entry
resolution dated December 29, 1983 in G. R. No. of judgment, became final on March 25, 1983.
64432, as follows: The petitioners in the instant case - G. R. No.
"x x x This case has its origins in a petition for 64432 - contend that the writs of possession
reconstitution of title filed with the Court of and demolition issued in the respondent court
First Instance of Iloilo involving a parcel of should now be implemented; that Civil Case
land known as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. No. 00827 before the Intermediate Appellate
Barbara Cadastre covered by Original Court was filed only to delay the
Certificate of Title No. 6406 in the name of implementation of the writ; that counsel for
Romana Hitalia. Eventually, Original the respondent should be held in contempt of
Certificate of Title No. 6406 was cancelled court for engaging in a concerted but futile
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106098 effort to delay the execution of the writs of
was issued in the names of Alfonso Hitalia possession and demolition and that
and Eduardo S. Baranda. The Court issued a petitioners are entitled to damages because
writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria of prejudice caused by the filing of this
P. Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honor petition before the Intermediate Appellate
on the ground that they also have TCT No. Court. On September 26, 1983, this Court
25772 over the same Lot No. 4517. The Court, issued a Temporary Restraining Order to
after considering the private respondents' maintain the status quo, both in the
opposition and finding TCT No. 25772 Intermediate Appellate Court and in the
fraudulently acquired, ordered that the writ of Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. Considering that -
possession be carried out. A motion for (1) there is merit in the instant petition for
reconsideration having been denied, a writ of indeed the issues discussed in G.R. No. 64432
demolition was issued on March 29, 1982. as raised in Civil Case No 00827 before the
Perez and Gotera filed a petition for certiorari respondent court have already been passed
and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. On upon in G.R. No. 62042; and (2) the
August 6, 1982, the Court of Appeals denied Temporary Restraining Order issued by the
the petition. Perez and Gotera filed the Intermediate Appellate Court was only
petition for review on certiorari denominated intended not to render the petition moot and
 academic pending the Court's consideration Reiterating Motion for Execution of Judgment of
of the issues, the Court RESOLVED to DIRECT "(aResolutions dated January 7, 1983 and March 9,
the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court ) 1983 Promulgated by Honorable Supreme Court
not to take cognizance of issues already (First Division) in G.R. No. 62042;
resolved by this Court and accordingly
DISMISS the petition in Civil Case No. 00827. Motion for Execution of Judgment of Resolution
Immediate implementation of the writs of "( dated December 29, 1983 Promulgated by
possession and demolition is likewise b) Honorable Supreme Court (First Division) in G. R.
ordered." (pp. 107-108, Rollo - G.R. No. No. 64432;
64432) "(c
)
On May 9, 1984, the Court issued a resolution denying The Duties of the Register of Deeds are purely
with finality a motion for reconsideration of the ministerial under Act 496, therefore she must
December 29, 1983 resolution in G. R. No. 64432. On register all orders, judgment, resolutions of this
this same date, another resolution was issued, this Court and that of Honorable Supreme Court.
time in G. R. No. 62042, referring to the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo the ex-parte motion of the private "Finding the said motions meritorious and
respondents (Baranda and Hitalia) for execution of the there being no opposition thereto, the same is
judgment in the resolutions dated January 7, 1983 and hereby GRANTED.
March 9, 1983. In the meantime, the then
Intermediate Appellate Court issued a resolution dated "WHEREFORE, Transfer Certificate of Title No.
February 10, 1984, dismissing Civil Case No. 00827 T-25772 is hereby declared null and void and
which covered the same subject matter as the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-106098 is
Resolutions abovecited pursuant to our Resolution hereby declared valid and subsisting title
dated December 29, 1983. The resolution dated concerning the ownership of Eduardo S.
December 29, 1983 in G. R. No. 64432 became final Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, all of Sta.
on May 20, 1984. Barbara Cadastre.

Upon motions of the petitioners, the Regional Trial "The Acting Register of Deeds of Iloilo is
Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G. further ordered to register the Subdivision
Gustilo issued the following order: Agreement of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso
"Submitted are the following motions filed by Hitalia as prayed for." (p. 466, Rollo - G.R. No.
movants Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso 64432)
Hitalia through counsel dated August 28,
1984: The above order was set aside on October 8, 1984
upon a motion for reconsideration and manifestation
filed by the Acting Registrar of Deeds of Iloilo, Atty. In compliance with our resolutions, the Regional Trial
Helen P. Sornito on the ground that there was a Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G.
pending case before this Court, an Action for Gustilo issued two (2) orders dated November 6, 1986
Mandamus, Prohibition, Injunction under G. R. No. and January 6, 1987 respectively, to wit:
67661 filed by Atty. Eduardo Baranda, against the "O R D E R
former which remained unresolved.
"This is an Ex-parte Motion and Manifestation
In view of this development, the petitioners filed in G. submitted by the movants through counsel on
R. No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432 ex-parte motions for October 20, 1986; the Manifestation of Atty.
issuance of an order directing the Regional Trial Court Helen Sornito, Register of Deeds of the City of
and Acting Register of Deeds to execute and Iloilo, and formerly acting register of deeds for
implement the judgments of this Court. They prayed the Province of Iloilo dated October 23, 1986
that an order be issued: and the Manifestation of Atty. Avito S.
Saclauso, Acting Register of Deeds, Province
Ordering both the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo of Iloilo dated November 5, 1986.
Branch XXIII, under Hon. Judge Tito G. Gustilo and
"1 the acting Register of Deeds Helen P. Sornito to "Considering that the motion of movants Atty.
. register the Order dated September 5, 1984 of the Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia dated
lower court; August 12, 1986 seeking the full
implementation of the writ of possession was
granted by the Honorable Supreme Court,
To cancel No. T-25772. Likewise to cancel no. T-
Second Division per its Resolution dated
"2 106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates
September 17, 1986, the present motion is
. of title to each of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso
hereby GRANTED.
Hitalia;
Plus other relief and remedies equitable under the
"WHEREFORE, the Acting Register of Deeds,
premises." (p. 473, 64432 Rollo)
Province of Iloilo, is hereby ordered to register
the Order of this Court dated September 5,
Acting on these motions, we issued on September 17,
1984 as prayed for.
1986 a Resolution in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No.
64432 granting the motions as prayed for. Acting on xxx xxx xxx
another motion of the same nature filed by the
petitioners, we issued another Resolution dated "O R D E R
October 8, 1986 referring the same to the Court
Administrator for implementation by the judge below.
 "This is a Manifestation and Urgent Petition for clarification on the following points:
for the Surrender of Transfer Certificate of As to the prayer of Atty. Eduardo Baranda for the
Title No. T-25772 submitted by the petitioners cancellation of TCT T-25772, should the same be
Atty. Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia "a referred to the Court of Appeals (as mentioned in
on December 2, 1986 in compliance with the . the Resolution of November 27, 1985) or is it
order of this Court dated November 25, 1986, already deemed granted by implication (by virtue of
a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Resolution dated September 17, 1986)?
Opposition filed by Maria Provido Gotera
through counsel on December 4, 1986 which Does the Resolution dated September 17, 1986
was granted by the Court pursuant to its include not only the implementation of the writ of
Order dated December 15, 1986. Considering "b
possession but also the cancellation of TCT T-25772
that no Opposition was filed within the thirty .
and the subdivision of Lot 4517?" (p. 536, Rollo -
(30) days period granted by the Court finding 64432)
the petition tenable, the same is hereby Acting on this motion and the other motions filed by
GRANTED. the parties, we issued a resolution dated May 25, 1987
noting all these motions and stating therein:
"WHEREFORE, Maria Provido Gotera is hereby
ordered to surrender Transfer Certificate of xxx xxx xxx
Title No. T-25772 to this Court within ten (10) "Since entry of judgment in G. R. No. 62042
days from the date of this order, after which was made on January 7, 1983 and in G. R. No.
period, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- 64432 on May 30, 1984, and all that remains
25772 is hereby declared annulled and the is the implementation of our resolutions, this
Register of Deeds of Iloilo is ordered to issue a COURT RESOLVED to refer the matters
new Certificate of Title in lieu thereof in the concerning the execution of the decisions to
name of petitioners Atty. Eduardo S. Baranda the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City for
and Alfonso Hitalia, which certificate shall appropriate action and to apply disciplinary
contain a memorandum of the annulment of sanctions upon whoever attempts to trifle
the outstanding duplicate." (pp. 286- with the implementation of the resolutions of
287, Rollo- 64432) this Court. No further motions in these cases
will be entertained by this Court." (p.
On February 9, 1987, Atty. Hector Teodosio, the 615, Rollo - 64432)
counsel of Gregorio Perez, private respondent in G. R.
No. 64432 and petitioner in G. R. No. 62042, filed a In the meantime, in compliance with the Regional Trial
motion for explanation in relation to the resolution Court's orders dated November 6, 1986 and January 6,
dated September 17, 1986 and manifestation asking 1987, Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso
annotated the order declaring Transfer Certificate of petitioners.
Title No. T-25772 as null and void, cancelled the same
and issued new certificates of titles numbers T- The records show that after the Acting Register of
111560, T-111561 and T-111562 in the name of Deeds annotated a notice of lis pendens on the new
petitioners Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia in certificates of titles issued in the name of the
lieu of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-106098. petitioners, the petitioners filed in the reconstitution
case an urgent ex-parte motion to immediately cancel
However, a notice of lis pendens "on account of or by notice of lis pendens annotated thereon.
reason of a separate case (Civil Case No. 15871) still
pending in the Court of Appeals" was carried out and In his order dated February 12, 1987, respondent
annotated in the new certificates of titles issued to the Judge Gustilo granted the motion and directed the
petitioners. This was upheld by the trial court after Acting Register of Deeds of Iloilo to cancel the lis
setting aside its earlier order dated February 12, 1987 pendens found on Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-
ordering the cancellation of lis pendens. 106098; T-111560; T-111561 and T-111562.

This prompted the petitioners to file another motion in Respondent Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso
G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432 to order the trial filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 12,
court to reinstate its order dated February 12, 1987 1987 order stating therein:
directing the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the "That the undersigned hereby asks for a
notice of lis pendens in the new certificates of titles. reconsideration of the said order based on the
second paragraph of Section 77 of P. D. 1529,
In a resolution dated August 17, 1987, we resolved to to wit:
refer the said motion to the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo City, Branch 23 for appropriate action. "'At any time after final judgment in
favor of the defendant or other
Since respondent Judge Tito Gustilo of the Regional disposition of the action such as to
Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 denied the petitioners' terminate finally all rights of the
motion to reinstate the February 12, 1987 order in plaintiff in and to the land and/or
another order dated September 17, 1987, the buildings involved, in any case in
petitioners filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition which a memorandum or notice
andmandamus with preliminary injunction to compel of Lis Pendenshas been registered as
the respondent judge to reinstate his order dated provided in the preceding section,
February 12, 1987 directing the Acting Register of the notice of Lis Pendens shall be
Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in deemed cancelled upon the
the new certificates of titles issued in the name of the registration of a certificate of the
 clerk of court in which the action or aside his February 12, 1987 order and granted the
proceeding was pending stating the Acting Register of Deeds' motion for reconsideration.
manner of disposal thereof.'
The issue hinges on whether or not the pendency of
"That the lis pendens under Entry No. 427183 the appeal in Civil Case No. 15871 with the Court of
was annotated on T-106098, T-111560, T- Appeals prevents the court from cancelling the notice
111561 and T-111562 by virtue of a case of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of the
docketed as Civil Case No. 15871, now petitioners which were earlier declared valid and
pending with the Intermediate Court of subsisting by this Court in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R.
Appeals, entitled, 'Calixta Provido, Ricardo No. 64432. A corollary issue is on the nature of the
Provido, Sr., Maxima Provido and Perfecto duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a
Provido, Plaintiffs, versus Eduardo Baranda notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
and Alfonso Hitalia, Respondents.'
Civil Case No. 15871 was a complaint to seek recovery
"That under the above-quoted provisions of of Lot No. 4517 of Sta. Barbara Cadastre Iloilo, (the
P.D. 152, the cancellation of subject Notice same subject matter of G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No.
of Lis Pendens can only be made or deemed 64432) from petitioners Baranda and Hitalia filed by
cancelled upon the registration of the Calixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, Maxima Provido and
certificate of the Clerk of Court in which the Perfecta Provido before the Regional Trial Court of
action or proceeding was pending, stating the Iloilo, Branch 23. At the instance of Atty. Hector P.
manner of disposal thereof. Teodosio, the Providos' counsel, a notice of lis pendens
was annotated on petitioners' Certificate of Title No. T-
"Considering that Civil Case No. 1587, upon 106098 covering Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre.
which the Notice of Lis Pendens was based is
still pending with the Intermediate Court of Acting on a motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners,
Appeals, only the Intermediate Court of the court issued an order dated October 24, 1984
Appeals and not this Honorable Court in a dismissing Civil Case No. 15871.
mere cadastral proceedings can order the
cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens." The order was then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
(pp. 68-69, Rollo) This appeal is the reason why respondent Judge
Gustilo recalled the February 12, 1987 order directing
Adopting these arguments and on the ground that the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis
some if not all of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 pendens annotated on the certificates of titles of the
were not privies to the case affected by the Supreme petitioners.
Court resolutions, respondent Judge Tito Gustilo set
This petition is impressed with merit.
The decision in G. R. No. 62042 became final and
Maria Provido Gotera was one of the petitioners in G. executory on March 25, 1983 long before Civil Case
R. No. 62042. Although Calixta Provido, Ricardo No. 15871 was filed.
Provido, Maxima Provido and Perfecta Provido, the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were not impleaded Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that the
as parties, it is very clear in the petition that Maria Providos, private respondents herein, in filing Civil
Provido was acting on behalf of the Providos who Case No. 15871 were trying to delay the full
allegedly are her co-owners in Lot No. 4517, Sta. implementation of the final decisions in G. R. No.
Barbara Cadastre as shown by Transfer Certificate of 62042 as well as G. R. No. 64432 wherein this Court
Title No. T-25772 issued in her name and the names of ordered immediate implementation of the writs of
the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871, among others. possession and demolition in the reconstitution
(Annex "E", G.R. No. 62042, p. 51, Rollo) In fact, one of proceedings involving Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara
the issues raised by petitioners Maria Provido Gotera Cadastre.
and Gregoria Perez in G. R. No. 62042 was as follows:
xxx xxx xxx The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is defined in the
following manner:
Whether or not, in the same reconstitution
proceedings, respondent Judge Midpantao L. Adil "Lis pendens has been conceived to protect
"2 had the authority to declare as null and void the the real rights of the party causing the
. transfer certificate of title in the name of petitioner registration thereof. With the lis pendens duly
Maria Provido Gotera and her other co-owners." (p. recorded, he could rest secure that he would
3, Rollo; Underlining supplied) not lose the property or any part of it. For,
It thus appears that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to a
15871 were privies to G. R. No. 62042 contrary to the prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that
trial court's findings that they were not. the particular property is in litigation; and that
he should keep his hands off the same, unless
G. R. No. 62042 affirmed the order of the then Court of of course he intends to gamble on the results
First Instance of Iloilo in the reconstitution proceedings of the litigation. (Section 24, Rule 14, Rules of
declaring TCT No. 25772 in the name of the Providos Court; Jamora v. Duran, et al., 69 Phil. 3, 11; I
over Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre null and void Martin, Rules of Court, p. 415, footnote 3,
for being fraudulently obtained and declaring TCT No. citing cases.)" (Nataño v. Esteban, 18 SCRA
106098 over the same parcel Lot No. 4517, Sta. 481, 485-485)
Barbara Cadastre in the name of petitioners Eduardo
The private respondents are not entitled to this
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia valid and subsisting.
protection. The facts obtaining in this case necessitate
the application of the rule enunciated in the cases of Acting Register of Deeds based on Section 77 of
Victoriano v. Rovira (55 Phil. 1000), Municipal Council Presidential Decree No. 1529, he conveniently forgot
of Paranaque v. Court of First Instance of Rizal (70 Phil. the first paragraph thereof which provides:
363) and Sarmiento v. Ortiz (10 SCRA 158), to the "Cancellation of lis pendens. - Before final
effect that: judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be
"We have once held that while ordinarily a cancelled upon Order of the Court after
notice of pendency which has been filed in a proper showing that the notice is for the
proper case, cannot be cancelled while the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or
action is pending and undetermined, the that it is not necessary to protect the rights of
proper court has the discretionary power to the party who caused it to be registered. It
cancel it under peculiar circumstances, as for may also be cancelled by the Register of
instance, where the evidence so far presented Deeds upon verified petition of the party who
by the plaintiff does not bear out the main caused the registration thereof."
allegations of his complaint, and where the
continuances of the trial, for which the This Court cannot understand how respondent Judge
plaintiff is responsible, are unneccessarily Gustilo could have been misled by the respondent
delaying the determination of the case to the Acting Register of Deeds on this matter when in fact
prejudice of the defendant. (Victoriano v. he was the same Judge who issued the order
Rovira, supra; The Municipal Council of dismissing Civil Case No. 15871 prompting the private
Paranaque v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondents to appeal said order dated October 10,
supra)" 1984 to the Court of Appeals. The records of the main
case are still with the court below but based on the
The facts of this case in relation to the earlier cases order, it can be safely assumed that the various
brought all the way to the Supreme Court illustrate pleadings filed by the parties subsequent to the
how the private respondents tried to block but motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners (the
unsuccessfuly the already final decisions in G. R. No. defendants therein) touched on the issue of the
62042 and G. R. No. 64432. validity of TCT No. 25772 in the name of the Providos
over Lot Number 4571, Sta. Barbara Cadastre in the
Parenthetically, respondent judge Tito Gustilo abused light of the final decisions in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R.
his discretion in sustaining the respondent Acting No. 64432.
Register of Deeds' stand that the notice of lis pendens
in the certificates of titles of the petitioners over Lot The next question to be determined is on the nature of
No. 4571, Barbara Cadastre cannot be cancelled on the duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate and/or
the ground of pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 with cancel the notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate
the Court of Appeals. In upholding the position of the of title.
 to, must, x x x obligation - used to express a command
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It or exhortation, used in laws, regulations or directives
shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to to express what is mandatory."
immediately register an instrument presented for Hence, the function of a Register of Deeds with
registration dealing with real or personal property reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances,
which complies with all the requisites for registration. instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The
x x x. If the instrument is not registrable, he shall respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any
forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of
presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground the respondent Judge's Order directing him to cancel
or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates
appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of
this Decree." land.
In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in
Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds pursuance of any deed x x x or other instrument
is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken presented to him, he should have asked the opinion of
or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the
mortgage or other instrument presented to him for Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds
registration or where any party in interest does not Registration Administration in accordance with Section
agree with the action taken by the Register of deeds 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
with reference to any such instrument, the question
shall be submitted to the Commission of Land In the ultimate analysis, however, the responsibility for
Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party the delays in the full implementation of this Court's
in interest thru the Register of Deeds. x x x." already final resolutions in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R.
No. 64432 which includes the cancellation of the
The elementary rule in statutory construction is that notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of
when the words and phrases of the statute are clear titles of the petitioners over Lot No. 4517 of the Sta.
and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined Barbara Cadastre falls on the respondent Judge. He
from the language employed and the statute must be should never have allowed himself to become part of
taken to mean exactly what it says. dilatory tactics, giving as excuse the wrong impression
that Civil Case No. 15871 filed by the private
The statute concerning the function of the Register of respondents involves another set of parties claiming
Deeds to register instruments in a torrens certificate of Lot No. 4517 under their, own Torrens Certificate of
title is clear and leaves no room for construction. Title.
According to Webster's Third International Dictionary
of the English Language - the word shall means "ought WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
February 12, 1987 order of the Regional Trial Court of registered owner, conveying an undivided
Iloilo, Branch 23 is REINSTATED. All subsequent orders portion of an area of 3.710 square meters
issued by the trial court which annulled the February only in favor of Florentino Gabayan, this
12, 1987 order are SET ASIDE. Costs against the Original Certificate of Title No. 548 is hereby
private respondents. cancelled with respect to said area of 3.710
square meters and in lieu thereof, the name
AURELIO BALBIN AND FRANCISCO BALBIN, of the vendee x x x is hereby substituted to
PETITIONERS, VS. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF succeed to all rights, participation in interest
ILOCOS SUR, RESPONDENT. of the vendor. x x x

Appeal from the resolution of the Commissioner of "Date of Instrument: January 25, 1955, x x x
Land Registration in LRC Consulta No. 366.
x x x
On November 15, 1961 petitioners presented to the
register of deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of the
"Entry No. 5659. Sale of portion.
registered owners certificate of title (OCT No. 548) and
an instrument entitled "Deed of Donation inter-vivos", Sale for the sum of P100.00 executed by the
with the request that; the same be annotated on the registered owner, conveying an undivided
title. Under the terms of the instrument sought to be portion of an area of 16.713 square meters in
annotated one Cornelio Balbin, registered owner of the favor of Roberto Bravo, this Original
parcel of land described in OCT No. 548, appears to Certificate of Title No. 548 is hereby cancelled
have donated inter-vivos an undivided two-thirds (2/3) with respect to said undivided portion
portion thereof in favor of petitioners. The entire area x x x and in lieu thereof the name of the
of the land is 11.2225 hectares. vendee x x x is hereby substituted to succeed
The register of deeds denied the requested annotation to all rights, participation and interest of the
for being "legally defective or otherwise vendor x x x
not sufficient in law." It appears that previously
annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances on "Date of Instrument: June 9, 1953. x x x
the certificate are three separate sales of undivided
portions of the land earlier executed by x x x
Cornelio Balbin in favor of three different buyers. The
pertinent entries read: "Entry No. 5660. Sale of portion.
"Entry No. 5658. Sales. Sale for the sum of P400.00 executed by the
registered owner, conveying an undivided
Sale for the sum of P400.00 executed by the
portion of an area of 15.000 square meters in
 favor of Juana Gabayan, this Certificate of three different occasions in favor of three
Title No. 548 is hereby cancelled with respect different buyers. Consequently, aside from
to said undivided portion x x x and in lieu the owner's duplicate issued to
thereof the name of the vendee x x x is here- Cornelio Balbin, there are now three co-
by substituted to succeed to all rights, owner's duplicates which are presumably in
participation and interest of the vendor x x x the possession of the three buyers.

"Date of instrument: February 12, Accordingly, in addition to the owner's

1952. x x x" duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No.
548, the three co-owner's duplicates must
The final part of the annotations referring to the likewise be surrendered.
above-mentioned sales contains an additional
memorandum stating that "three co-owner's duplicate The claim of counsel for the donees that the
certificates of title No. 548 have been issued (by the issuance of the three co-owner's duplicates
register of deeds of Ilocos Sur) in the name was unauthorized is beside the point. Unless
of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto Bravo and end until a court of competent jurisdiction
Juana Gabayan upon verbal request of Mr. rules to the contrary, these titles are
Andres Cabeldo, Notary Public of Caoayan, I. Sur, for presumed to have been lawfully issued."
and in the name of the vendees, this 5th day of
January, 1956 at Vigan, I. Sur." Mainly because theseWithout presenting those three (3) other duplicates of
the title, petitioners would want to compel annotation
three other co-owner's copies of the certificate of title
No. 548 had not been presented by petitioners the of the deed of donation upon the copy in their
Register of Deeds refused to make the requested possession, citing section 55 of Act 496, which
annotation. provides that "the production of the owner's duplicate
certificate of title whenever any voluntary instrument
Unsatisfied, petitioners referred the matter to the
is presented for registration shall be conclusive
Commissioner of Land Registration, who subsequently
authority from the registered owner to the register of
upheld the action of the Register of Deeds in a
deeds to make a memorandum of registration in
resolution dated April 10, 1962. With respect to the
accordance with such instrument." Under this
principal point in controversy, the Commissioner
provision, according to petitioners, the presentation of
observed:
the other copies of the title is not required, first,
"(1) It appears that the donor is now merely a because it speaks of "registered owner" and not one
co-owner of the property described in the whose claim to or interest in the property is merely
Original Certificate of Title No. 548, having annotated on the title, such as the three vendees-co-
previously sold undivided portions thereof on owners in this case; and secondly, because the
issuance of the duplicate copies in their favor was property subject of the donation is presumed conjugal,
illegal or unauthorized. that is, property of the marriage of the donor,
We find no merit in petitioners' contention. Section Cornelio Balbin, and his deceased wife, Nemesia Mina,
55, supra, obviously assumes that there is only one "there should first be a liquidation of the partnership
duplicate copy of the title in question, namely, that of before the surviving spouse may make such a
the registered owner himself, such that its production conveyance." This legal conclusion may appear too
whenever a voluntary instrument is presented general and sweeping in its implications, for without a
constitutes sufficient authority from him for the previous settlement of the partnership a surviving
register of deeds to make the corresponding spouse may dispose of his aliquot share or interest
memorandum of registration. therein - subject of course to the result of future
liquidation. Nevertheless, it is not to be denied that, if
In the case at bar, the three other copies of the title the conjugal character of the property is assumed, the
were in existence, presumably issued under section deed of donation executed by the husband,
43+ of Act 496. Cornelio Balbin, bears on its face an infirmity which
As correctly observed by the Land Registration justified the denial of its registration, namely, the fact
Commissioner, petitioners' claim that the issuance of that the two-thirds portion of said property which he
those copies was unauthorized or illegal is beside the donated was more than his one-half share, not to say
point, its legality being presumed until otherwise more than what remained of such share after he had
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. sold portions of the same Land to three other parties.
There being several copies of the same title in It appears that there is a case pending in the Court of
existence, it is easy to see how their integrity may be First Instance of Ilocos Sur (CC No. 2221), wherein the
adversely affected if an encumbrance, or an outright civil status of the donor Cornelio Balbin and the
conveyance, is annotated on one copy and not on the character of the land in question are in issue, as well
others. The law itself refers to every copy authorized as the validity of the different conveyances executed
to be issued as a duplicate of the original, which by him. The matter of registration of the deed of
means that both must contain identical entries of the donation may well await the outcome of that case, and
transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting the in the meantime the rights of the interested parties
land covered by the title. If this were not so, if could be protected by filing the proper notices
different copies were permitted to carry differing of lis pendens.
annotations, the whole system of Torrens registration In view of the foregoing, the decisions of the
would cease to be reliable. Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur and that of the
One other ground relied upon by the Land Registration Commissioner of Land Registration are affirmed. No
Commissioner in upholding the action taken by the pronouncement as to costs.
Register of Deeds of Ilocos Suris that since the Reyes, J.B.L.(Acting C.J.), Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur. died when the sale was made, the surviving
Capistrano, J., did not take part. husband can not dispose of the whole
Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave. property without violating the existing law
(LRC Consulta No. 46 dated June 10, 1958).
TEODORO ALMIROL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS.
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN, "To effect the registration of the aforesaid
RESPONDENT-APPELLEE. deed of absolute Sale, it is necessary that the
property be first liquidated and transferred in
DECISION the name of the surviving spouses and the
CASTRO, J.: heirs of the deceased wife by means of
extrajudicial settlement or partition and that
On June 28, 1961 Teodoro Almirol purchased the consent of such other heir or heirs must
from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in the be procured by means of another document
municipality of Esperanza, province of Agusan, and ratifying this sale executed by their father."
covered by original certificate of title P-1237 in the
name of "Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo." In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court of
Sometime in May, 1962 Almirol went to the office of First Instance of Agusan on a petition for mandamus
the Register of Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to (sp. civ. case 151), to compel the Register of Deeds to
register the deed of sale and to secure in his name a register the deed of sale and to issue to him the
transfer certificate of title. Registration was refused corresponding transfer certificate of title, and to
by the Register of Deeds upon the following recover P5,000 in moral damages and P1,000
grounds, inter alia, stated in his letter of May 21, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. It
1962: is Almirol's assertion that it is but a ministerial duty of
"1. That Original Certificate of Title No. P- the respondent to perform the acts required of him,
1237 is registered in the name and that he (Almirol) has no other plain, speedy and
of Arcenio Abalo, married adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
to Nicolasa M. Abalo, and by legal In his answer with counterclaim for P10,000 damages,
presumption, is considered conjugal property; the respondent reiterated the grounds stated in his
letter of May 21, 1962, averred that the petitioner has
"2. That in the sale of a conjugal property "other legal, plain, speedy and adequate remedy at
acquired after the effectivity of the New Civil law by appealing the decision of the respondent to the
Code it is necessary that both spouses sign Honorable Commissioner of Land Registration," and
the document; but prayed for dismissal of the petition.
"3. Since, as in this case, the wife has already In its resolution of October 16, 1963 the lower court,
declaring that "mandamus does not lie * * * because or of their provisions? If the purpose of
the adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of registration is merely to give notice, then
Rep. Act 1151", dismissed the petition, with costs questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
against the petitioner. instruments are expected to be
Hence the present appeal by Almirol. decided after, not before, registration. It
must follow as a necessary consequence that
The only question of law tendered for resolution is registration must first be allowed, and validity
whether mandamus will lie to compel the respondent or effect litigated afterwards." (Gurbax Singh
to register the deed of sale in question. Pablo & Co. vs. Reyes and Tantoco, 92 Phil.
Although the reasons relied upon by the respondent 182-183)
evince a sincere desire on his part to maintain
inviolate the law on succession and transmission of Indeed, a register of deeds is entirely precluded by
rights over real properties, these do not constitute section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising his
legal grounds for his refusal to register the personal judgment and discretion when confronted
deed. Whether a document is valid or not, is not for with the problem of whether to register a deed or
the register of deeds to determine; this function instrument on the ground that it is invalid. For under
belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction. the said section, when he is in doubt as to the proper
[1] step to be taken with respect to any deed or other
instrument presented to him for registration, all that
"Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the
intended to harass, is not the duty of a Re- question to the Commissioner of Land Registration
gister of Deeds to decide, but a court of com- who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order
petent jurisdiction." (Gabriel vs. Register of prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful
Deeds of Rizal, et al, G.R. No. L-17956, Sept. question. Section 4 of R.A. 1151 reads as follows:
30, 1963)
"Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of
"* * * the supposed invalidity of the contracts Land Registration. - When the Register of Deeds is in
of lease is no valid objection to their doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
registration, because invalidity is no proof of memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed,
their non-existence or a valid excuse for mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for
denying their registration. The law on registration, or where any party in interest does not
registration does not require that only valid agree with the Register of Deeds with reference to any
instruments shall be registered. How can such matter, the question shall be submitted to the
parties affected thereby be supposed to know Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the
their invalidity before they become aware, certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the
actually or constructively, of their existence question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the
suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and court a quo correctly dismissed the petition for
thereupon the Commissioner, after consideration of mandamus. Section 4 above-quoted provides that
the matter shown by the records certified to him, and "where any party in interest does not agree with the
in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties Register of Deeds
and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step * * * * the question shall be submitted to the
to be taken or memorandum to be made.His decision Commissioner of Land Registration," who thereafter
in cases shall be conclusive and binding upon all shall "enter an order prescribing the step to be taken
Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That when a or memorandum to be made", which shall be
party in interest disagrees we ruling or resolution of "conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds."
the Commissioner and the issue involves a question of This administrative remedy must be resorted to by the
law, said decision may be appealed to the Supreme petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.
Court within thirty days from and after receipt of the
notice thereof." ACCORDINGLY, the Resolution of the lower court of
October 16, 1963 is affirmed, at petitioner's cost.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the