REPUBLIC V. CA 135 SCRA 156 (1985) FACTS: Natalio Enanoria owned a parcel of land (Lot no.

ACTS: Natalio Enanoria owned a parcel of land (Lot no. 5280) with OCT
10933 issued in 1922.
FACTS: In 1961, CFI Quezon upheld the registration of a parcel of land in the 1. He died in 1924. In 1963, the heirs of Enanoria asked a surveyor to
names of Prudencio Maxino and Tarciana Moreles. relocate the lot; they discovered that the said property was occupied by
1. Subsequently, OCT was issued covering the same. In 1969, the Republic Placido Alecha, the owner of the adjoining lot. Despite demands to
filed a petition to annul said decision citing that the land in question are vacate the subject property, spouses Alecha refused to do so.
part of unclassified public forest and the possessory information title 2. As a result, the heirs of Enanoria filed a complaint against Alecha,
relied upon the Maxino spouses covered only 29 hectares and not 885 alleging that the latter had usurped their property.
hectares. 3. The trial court held in favor of the Enannorias however upon appeal, CA
2. CA dismissed the petition on the account that the decision had become reversed the decision and dismission the complaint of the Enanoria heirs.
final and unappealable.
ISSUE: Is the complaint of the heirs of Enanoria barred by prescription ?
ISSUE: WON the certificate of title issued to spouses Maxino is valid
HELD: The SC held that Enanoria’s complaint does not prescribe nor is it barred
HELD: It is incontestable that the subject property registered by the Maxinos, is by laches. Sec 46 of the Land Registration Law (now Sec 47 of the Property
within the public forest and as such, not alienable and disposable nor susceptible Registration Decree PD 1529 effective June 11, 1978) provides that “no title to
of private appropriation. Its inclusion in the public forest was certified by the registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
Director of Forestry in July 1940. prescription or adverse possession.

The basis of the claim of the Maxinos that is a Spanish title is untenable. First, the Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also his
composition title is spurious based on the facts alone as it appears the alleged deed hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the decedent
of absolute sale is but a quit-claim. Also, it is axiomatic that public forestral by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their
lands is not subject to registration. Its inclusion in a title, whether the title be predecessor-in-interest.
issued during the Spanish regime or under the Torrens system, nullifies the
title. As such, possession of public foresrtal lands, however long, cannot ripen The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop
into private ownership. forever any question as to its legality. “Once a title is registered, the owner
may rest secure, and avoid the possibility of losing his land.”

Title to land can no longer be acquired by prescription after a Torrens title

has been issued for it. The right to recover possession of registered lands is
imprescriptible because possession is merely a consequence of ownership.

In the present case, the petitioners’ action to recover the subject property cannot
be barred by the equitable defense of laches or delay because they became aware
of the encroachment only after they hired a surveyor in 1963 to ascertain the true
UMBAY V. ALECHA 135 SCRA 427 (1985) boundaries of the subject property.

Page | 1
 4. Donata also mortgaged other properties (TCT 2887-88) in favor of the
same bank to guarantee the payment of a loan her son made in the
amount of P35,200. All TCTs of the subject properties were in the name
of Donata Montemayor, of legal age, Filipino, widow and a resident of
Lubao Pampanga and were free from all liens and encumbrances.
5. Salvador Vitug failed to pay his loan so the bank foreclosed the
mortgaged properties and were sold at a public auction in May 1968 to
PNB who was the highest bidder. The titles thereto were consolidated in
the name of PNB. Likewise, Jaramilla and Bacani failed to settle their
loans with the bank so the latter foreclosed the mortgaged properties
which were sold at a public action. PNB was the highest bidder. In
August 1968, a new title was issued in PNB’s name.

6. In 1969, PNB sold the properties (TCT 2887-88) to Jesus Vitug,

Anunciacion de Guzman, Prudencia Fajardo, Salvador Vitug and Aurora
Guttierez.
7. In May 1970, Pragmacio and Maximo file an action for partition and
reconveyance before CFI Pampanga against Marcelo Mendiola as the
special administrator of the intestate estate of Donata, their siblings, the
heirs of Francisco, and PNB. Both claim that the subject properties were
conjugal properties of spouses Donata and Clodualdo of which they
claim a share of 2/11 of ½ thereof. They assailed the mortgage to PNB
and public auction of said properties were null and void. Lower court
PNB V. CA 153 SCRA 435 (1987) dismissed the complaint. CA reversed the lower court’s decision and held
in favor of brothers Pragmacio and Maximo.
FACTS: During his lifetime, Clodualdo Vitug married twice: Gervacia Flores
with whom he had 3 children: Victor, Lucina and Julio. Victor is survived by 5 ISSUE: Does the presumption of conjugality of properties acquired by the
children: Leonardo, Juan, Candida Francisco and Donaciano. spouses during coverture provided for in art 160 NCC apply to property covered
1. Juan is survived by his only daughter Florencia. Donata Montemayor by a Torrens certificate of title in the name of the widow?
was the 2nd wife with whom he had 8 children: Pragmacio, Maximo,
Jesus, Salvador, Prudencia, Anunciacion, Enrique and Francisco. HELD: In processing the loan applications of Donata Montemayor, the PNB had
Francisco is survived by 11 children. the right to rely on what appears in the certificates of title and no more. On its face
2. Clodualdo died intestate in May 1929 and a special proceeding named the properties are owned by Donata Montemayor, a widow. The PNB had no
Donata Montemayor as the administratrix. reason to doubt nor question the status of said registered owner and her ownership
3. In November 1952, Donata Montemayor, through her son, Salvador thereof. Indeed, there are no liens and encumbrances covering the same.
Vitug, mortgaged several parcels of land covered by TCT 2289 in favor
of PNB to guarantee a loan granted by the bank to Salvador Jaramilla and The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered
Pedro Bacani in the amount of P40,900. land has a right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has

Page | 2
actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man make such inquiry. FACTS: In 1927, Sixto Dumulong and his legal wife Isabel Marquez-Dumulong
were awarded a parcel of land in Capiz (OCT 6161). Sixto and Isabel had no
A Torrens title concludes all controversy over ownership of the land covered by a children and lived separately since 1920.
final degree of registration. Once the title is registered the owner may rest assured 1. Subsequently, Sixto cohabited with Placida, who even used Sixto’s
without the necessity of stepping into the portals of the court or sitting in the surname, and had several children.
mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land. 2. In March 1978, Placida and her children executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Adjudication and Sale of Real Property involving the subject property.
The presumption stipulated in Art. 160 does not apply in this case because it Said property was sold in favor of spouses Bernardo Decrepito and
appears on the face of the title that the properties were acquired by Donata when Loreta Dumolong.
she was already a widow. When the property is registered in the name of a spouse 3. They were able to acquire the supposed thumbmark of Isabel. But
only and there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by said spouse, apparently, Isabel never affixed her thumbmark and that the same was
this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to said spouse. not within her knowledge.
4. In November 1978, Placida registered the Deed and a Torrens title was
PNB had a reason to rely on what appears on the certificates of title of the issued in their name. Three months thereafter, Placida and her children
properties mortgaged. For all legal purposes, the PNB is a mortgagee in good faith sold the land to Bornales. Isabel assailed the sale.
for at the time the mortgages covering said properties were constituted the PNB 5. Isabel argued that the acquisition of the Torrens title by Placida et al was
was not aware to any flaw of the title of the mortgagor. Indeed, if the PNB knew through fraud. Bornales countered he was not aware of the fraudulent
of the conjugal nature of said properties it would not have approved the mortgage nature of the prior transactions, but since a Torrens was issued he should
applications covering said properties of Donata Montemayor without requiring the be considered as a buyer in good faith, hence entitled to some right.
consent of all the other heirs or co-owners thereof. Moreover, when said
properties were sold at public auction, the PNB was a purchaser for value in good ISSUE: May Bornales invoke the indefeasibility of a Torrens title?
faith.
HELD: No. Having bought the land registered under the Torrens system from
Placida who procured title thereto by means of fraud, Bornales cannot invoke the
indefeasibility of a certificate of title against Isabel to the extent of her interest
therein. Torrens system of land registration should not be used as a means to
perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real property. Registration, to
be effective, must be made in good faith. It is a settled rule that the defense of
indefeasibility of a certificate of title does not extend to a transferee
(Bornales) who takes it with notice of the flaws in his transferor's (Placida’s)
title.

 Also, Bornales had been a tenant of the Dumulong’s. He is aware that Placida
was not Sixto’s legal spouse and that it was Isabel who has a rightful claim over
the land. He should have not bought the land from Placida, considering his
knowledge of the fact that Placida could not have own any portion of the land
since she was not a legal wife.
BORNALES V. IAC 166 SCRA 519 (1988)

Page | 3
 3. Since the spouses defaulted on their loan with PNB, the bank extra-
judicially foreclosed the 16 parcels of land. The sheriff’s certificate of
sale was registered on April 3, 1972
4. Upon the expiration of the one-year legal redemption period, PNB
consolidated in its name the ownership of the subject properties and a
new TCT was issued in its name. however, the notice of levy in favor of
Continental Bank (now ICB) was carried over and now appears as the
sole encumbrance in the new titles of PNB
5. Subsequently, ICB, as successor in interest of Continental Bank, filed an
opposition alleging that since it was not aware of the extrajudicial
foreclosure, the new and consolidated titles in favor of PNB are null and
void
6. RTC Alaminos denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction
7. Petitioner appealed to CA averring that RTC erred in ruling (1) there is
an adverse claim or serious objection on the part of the oppositor render
the case controversial and as such, should be threshed out in an ordinary
case; and (2) it has no jurisdiction over the case
Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Section 112 of Act 496)
under which the petitioner seeks remedy has been interpreted by the
Supreme Court that the relief therein can only be granted if there is no
adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest
otherwise the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out
in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs.
ISSUE: WON RTC has jurisdiction over petitions filed under Sec 108 of Property
Registration Act
HELD: Yes. Under Sec 2 PD 1529, RTCs acting as land registration courts now
have exclusive jurisdiction not only over applications for original registration of
title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, but also over petitions
filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
PNB V. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, 199 SCRA 508 (1991) questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
FACTS: Petitioner PNB filed with RTC Alaminos, Pangasinan a petition for the Sec 2 of PD 1529 removed the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested
cancellation of a memorandum of encumbrance annotated upon its 16 TCTS in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the
1. Petitioner alleged that spouses Balingit executed a real estate mortgage in former law (Act 496) when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding
favor of PNB to secure a loan the spouses obtained from PNB multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings for
2. Annotated subsequent to the memoranda of the mortgage lien of PNB is “original registration” but also “over all petitioners filed after original registration
a “notice of levy re Civil Case Continental Bank v. Spouses Balingit) for of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such
a total sum of P96,636.1 at the back of the TCTs

Page | 4
applications or petitions. Clearly, therefore, that the lower court had ample 1926, has also been in the possession of Ladrido; and that the Viajars
jurisdiction to decide the instant case filed by PNB. have never been in actual physical possession of Lot 7340.
3. On 15 February 1974, Angelica and Celso Viajar instituted a civil action
for recovery of possession and damages against Ricardo Y. Ladrido
(Civil Case 9660) with the CFI Iloilo. Summoned to plead, Ladrido filed
his answer with a counterclaim. The Viajars filed their reply to the
answer.
4. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to implead Rosendo Te as
another defendant. The Viajars sought the annulment of the deed of
sale and the restitution of the purchase price with interest in the
event the possession of defendant Ladrido is sustained. Te filed his
answer to the amended complaint and he counterclaimed for damages.
The Viajars answered the counterclaim.
5. During the pendency of the case, Celso Viajar sold his rights over Lot
7340 to his mother and co-plaintiff, Angelica F. Viajar. For this reason,
Angelica F. Viajar appears to be the sole registered owner of the lot.
6. On 25 May 1978, Ricardo Ladrido died. He was substituted in the civil
action by his wife, Leonor P. Ladrido, and children, namely: Lourdes
VIAJAR V. CA 168 SCRA 405 (1988) Ladrido-Ignacio, Eugenio P. Ladrido and Manuel P. Ladrido, as parties
defendants.
FACTS: The spouses Ricardo and Leonor Ladrido were the owners of Lot 7511 7. After trial on the merits, a second amended complaint which included
of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan situated in barangay Cawayan, Pototan, Iloilo damages was admitted. On 10 December 1981, the trial court
(154,267 sqm., TCT T-21940 of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo). Spouses rendered its decision in favor of Ladrido, dismissing the complaint of
Rosendo and Ana Te were also the registered owners of a parcel of land described Angelica and Celso Viajar with costs against them, declaring Leonor
in their title as Lot 7340 of the Cadastral Survey of Pototan. P. Ladrido, Lourdes Ladrido-Ignacio, Eugenio P. Ladrido and
1. On 6 September 1973, Rosendo Te, with the conformity of his wife, sold Manuel P. Ladrido as owner of the parcel of land indicated as Lots A
this lot to Angelica F. Viajar and Celso F. Viajar for P5,000. A Torrens and B in the sketch plan situated in barangays Cawayan and
title was later issued in Viajar’s name. Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo, and containing an area of 25,855 sq.ms.,
2. Later, Angelica Viajar had Lot 7340 relocated and found out that and pronouncing that as owners of the land, the Ladridos are entitled to
the property was in the possession of Ricardo Y. Ladrido. the possession thereof.
Consequently, she demanded its return but Ladrido refused. The piece of
real property which used to be Lot 7340 of the Cadastral Survey of ISSUE: WON the change in the Suague river was gradual
Pototan was located in barangay Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo; that it
consisted of 20,089 sqm.; that at the time of the cadastral survey in HELD: The presumption is that the change in the course of the river was gradual
1926, Lot 7511 and Lot 7340 were separated by the Suague River; and caused by accretion and erosion (Martinez Cañas vs. Tuason, 5 Phil. 668;
that the area of 11,819 sq.ms of what was Lot 7340 has been in the Payatas Estate Improvement Co. vs. Tuason, 53 Phil. 55; C.H. Hodges vs. Garcia,
possession of Ladrido; that the area of 14,036 sq.ms., which was 109 Phil. 133). In the present case, the lower court correctly found that the
formerly the river bed of the Suague River per cadastral survey of evidence introduced by the Viajars to show that the change in the course of the

Page | 5
Suague River was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion is not clear and owner against diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in
convincing. The Ladridos have sufficiently established that for many years after the course of the adjoining stream. Similarly in C.N. Hodges vs. Garcia (109
1926 a gradual accretion on the eastern side of Lot 7511 took place by action of Phil. 133), it was ruled that if the land in question has become part of one’s estate
the current of the Suague River so that in 1979 an alluvial deposit of 29,912 as a result of accretion, it follows that said land now belongs to him. The fact that
sq.ms. (2.9912 hectares), more or less, had been added to Lot 7511 (Lot A: 14,036 the accretion to his land used to pertain to another's estate, which is covered by a
sq.ms., Lot B, 11,819 sq.ms. and Lot C, which is not in litigation, 4,057 sq.ms). Torrens Certificate of Title, cannot preclude the former from being the owner
The established facts indicate that the eastern boundary of Lot 7511 was the thereof. Registration does not protect the riparian owner against the diminution of
Suague River based on the cadastral plan. For a period of more than 40 years the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream.
(before 1940 to 1980) the Suague River overflowed its banks yearly and the Accretions which the banks of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the
property of the defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of current become the property of the owners of the banks (Art. 366 of the Old Civil
the current of the river. The consequent increase in the area of Lot 7511 due to Code; Art. 457 of the New). Such accretions are natural incidents to land
alluvion or accretion was possessed by the defendants whose tenants plowed and bordering on running streams and the provisions of the Civil Code in that respect
planted the same with corn and tobacco. The quondam river bed had been filled are not affected by the Registration Act.
by accretion through the years. The land is already plain and there is no indication
on the ground of any abandoned river bed. Under the law, accretion which the
banks or rivers may gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
waters becomes the property of the owners of the lands adjoining the banks.
(Art. 366, Old Civil Code; Art. 457, New Civil Code which took effect on 30
August 1950 [Lara v. Del Rosario, 94 Phil. 778]. Therefore, the accretion to Lot
7511 which consists of Lots A and B belong to the Ladridos.

Section 45 of Act 496 provides that “the obtaining of a decree of registration and
the entry of a certificate of title shall be regarded as an agreement running with the
land, and binding upon the applicant and all successors in title that the land shall
be and always remain registered land, and subject to the provisions of this Act and
all Acts amendatory thereof." Section 46 of the same act provides that “No title to
registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession."

The rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the
riparian owner against the diminution of the area of his registered land
through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream is well settled.
In Payatas Estate Improvement Co. vs. Tuason (53 Phil. 55), it was ruled that
Article 366 of the Civil Code provides that “any accretions which the banks of CORONEL V. CA,173 SCRA 26 (1987)
rivers may gradually receive from the effects of the current belong to the owners
of the estates bordering thereon.” Accretions of that character are natural FACTS: Petitioner Coronel filed a complaint for recover of possession of a parcel
incidents to land bordering on running streams and are not affected by the of land registered in his name. The complaint was filed against private
registration laws. It follows that registration does not protect the riparian respondents Merlan et al

Page | 6
 1. Coronel alleged that when he purchased the subject property, private
respondents were already occupying a portion thereof as “tenants at all” The petitioner is bound to recognize the lien in favor of the private respondents
and the latter refused the vacate the premises despite demands which was mistakenly excluded and therefore not inscribed in the Torrens title of
2. Private respondents, on the other hand, averred that the portion they the subject property.
occupied formed 1/3 undivided share which they had inherited and that
they never sold their 1/3 share
3. Third-party defendants Novelo et al, denied that they had sold the entire
property, they claimed that they only sold their 2/3 undivided share in the
property
4. It appears that the subject property was part of a bigger estate which was
inherited by Lontoc. When Lontoc died, the property was inherited by:
children of Enrique Merlan (Bernardino Merlan), children of Gabriel
Merlan (Jose Merlan) and the children of Francisca Merlan (Anuat)
5. In 1950, Bernardino and the Anuats sold their 2/3 undivided share to
spouses Manalo
6. Spouses Manalo, in turn, sold their share to Mariano Manalo. A new
TCT was then issued in the name of Mariano. The TCT covered the
whole property without any mention of the 1/3 share of the private
respondents which was not sold to them
7. Relying on the TCT of Mariano Manalo, petitioner Coronel purchased
the subject property for P27,000 and a new TCT was issued in his name

GOLLOY V. CA 173 SCRA 26 (1989)

ISSUE: WON Coronel is the owner of the subject property
FACTS: Petitioner Golloy has been, for more than 20 years, the registered owner
HELD: No. Coronel’s ownership only pertains to the 2/3 undivided share which and in possession of a parcel of land covered by TCT 45764. The southwest
he purchased from Mariano Manalo. boundary is owned by private respondents covered by certificate of title 8565.
The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered Sometime in 1966, private respondents subdivided their land among themselves
land has a right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate of title and to and in the course of doing so, private respondents had placed 2 monuments in the
dispense with the need of inquiring further. There is, however, a countervailing southwest portion of the petitioner’s land. As a result, petitioner Golloy filed an
doctrine, that mitigates the iron-clad application of the principle attaching full action to quiet title (claim ownership over a real property) before the CFI Tarlac.
faith and credit to a Torrens title. It is inspired by the highest concept of what is
fair and what is equitable. Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss with counterclaim, denying Golloy’s
allegation and maintained that they merely subdivided their own property and as
The simple possession of a certificate of title, under the Torrens system, does not such, Golloy had no cause of action.
necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein.
If a person obtains a title, under the Torrens system, which includes by mistake or During the pre-trial both parties agreed that the question of the boundaries of their
oversight, land which cannot be registered under the Torrens system, he does not, respective properties could be resolved by appointing a surveyor to relocate the
by virtue of said certificate aloe, become the owner of the lands included. disputed area.

Page | 7
 does by virtue of said c certificate alone become the owner of the land
In May 1968, Jovino Dauz, the surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, reported the illegally included.
following:
1. Petitioner’s land is Lot A of the subdivision plan, Psd-1413, being a
portion of the land described in OCT 126 in the name of Augustin
Golloy. The land under OCT 126 was surveyed on Mar 1918 and
subsequently titled in 1919
2. Private respondents’ land is Lot no. 1, 11-8218 in the name of Domingo
Balanga, which was surveyed on Mar 1913 and originally titled and
registered on Mar 1918 REPUBLIC V. CA, 83 SCRA 453 (1978)
3. There is overlapping on the boundaries which was due to the defect in
the survey on petitioner’s since it did not duly conform with the FACTS: Both Republic and respondents de Ocampo and Anglo claim ownership
previously approved of survey of Lot 1, 11-3218 under OCT 8565 of the subject parcel of land.
4. Private respondents’ land, TCT 8565, prevails over petitioner’s land 1. Republic claims that said properties were bequeathed to the Bureau of
since the former was surveyed and titled ahead. Education (now Bureau of Public Schools) by the late Esteban Jalandoni
through his will. Said properties were already registered under the
Trial court held in favor of private respondents. CA affirmed the same. Torrens system in the name of Meerkamp & Co prior to being acquired
by Jalandoni
ISSUE: Between the two title holders, who is entitled to the land in question? 2. Respondent de Ocampo based his claim on an application for registration
of the same. He claimed the lots were unregistered lands belonging to
HELD: Petitioner Golloy is entitled to the disputed portion of land. It is and possessed by him, by virtue of a donation from one Luis Mosquera
undisputed that that Balanga’s property was surveyed and titled earlier than 3. Respondent Anglo allegedly purchased the same from De Ocampo in
Golloy’s. Having been surveyed and thereafter registered, monuments were 1966
placed therein to indicate their respective boundaries. It is hardly persuasive that
the private respondents’ predecessor Balanga, believing that she has a rightful ISSUE: WON the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for land
claim to the overlapped portions, did not make any move to question the registration of De Ocampo on the ground that said properties were already
placement of the monuments. She could have easily objected to the placement registered under the Torrens system before 1919
and point out that the placements of the monuments excluded the overlapped
portions from her property. However, no such objections were made. As such, it HELD: No. Authorities are in agreement that a land registration court is without
may be construed that Balanga never believed that she has a right and legal claim jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already registered in an earlier
to the overlapped portion. registration case, and that the second decree entered for the same land is null and
void. If there is no valid and final judgment by the land registration to speak of,
Considering that the petitioner and his predecessors have in continuous possession then the filing of an admittedly late appeal from the decision denying the
in the concept of an owner, for almost 50 years (from 1919 when it was registered Amended Petition would be immaterial and of no moment insofar as these
to 1966 when the dispute ensued), the private respondents are guilty of laches. proceedings are concerned in view of the congenitally fatal infirmity that attaches
to the main decision decreeing for the second time, the registration of the same
Mere possession of certificate of title under Torrens System is not conclusive lots in favor of De Ocampo, despite an earlier registration in the name of
as to the holder’s true ownership of all the property described therein for he Meerkamp & Co. Jurisprudence holds that that the appellant’s failure to perfect an

Page | 8
appeal on time, although ordinarily decisive, carries no persuasive force, and may PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529
be completely disregarded if the trial court acted without jurisdiction.
AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO
As held in Reyes v. Borbon: When the attention of the court of land registration is REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
called to the fact that the same land has been registered in the name of two
different persons, it is the duty of the said court to order and investigation of that
fact and should be done even without requiring the parties to show that a fraud has WHEREAS, there is a need to update the Land Registration Act and to
been committed during the double registration. When it is established that the codify the various laws relative to registration of property, in order to
same has been registered in the name of two different persons, the title should facilitate effective implementation of said laws;
remain in the name of the person securing the first registration. The very purpose
of the Torrens system would be destroyed fi the same land may be subsequently WHEREAS, to strengthen the Torrens system, it is deemed necessary
brought under a second action for registration. to adopt safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property, and
to streamline and simplify registration proceedings and the issuance of
certificates of title;

WHEREAS, the decrees promulgated relative to the registration of

certificates of land transfer and emancipation patents issued pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 27 to hasten the implementation of the land
reform program of the country form an integral part of the property
registration laws;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following:

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Title of Decree. This Decree shall be known as the

PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE.

Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of

courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.

Page | 9
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all Entry Book shall contain, among other particulars, the entry
applications for original registration of title to lands, including number, the names of the parties, the nature of the document,
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after the date, hour and minute it was presented and received. The
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all recording of the deed and other instruments relating to
questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court unregistered lands shall be effected by any of annotation on
through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration the space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the
Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, same shall have been entered in the Primary Entry Book.
and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land
registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is
from the filing or issuance thereof. sufficient in law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record
the instrument in the manner provided herein. In case the
Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The Register of Deeds refuses its administration to record, said
system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby official shall advise the party in interest in writing of the ground
discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which are not or grounds for his refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter
yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands. to the Commissioner of Land Registration in accordance with
the provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the understood that any recording made under this section shall be
Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 of this without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
Decree, until the land shall have been brought under the operation of
the Torrens system. (c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds
shall endorse among other things, upon the original of the
The books of registration for unregistered lands provided under recorded instruments, the file number and the date as well as
Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act the hour and minute when the document was received for
No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, that all recording as shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the
instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registrant or person in interest the duplicate of the instrument,
registered under Section 113 of this Decree. with appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the
instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the
provincial or city assessor as required by existing law.
Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered
lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall (d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens,
be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such instrument adverse claim and other instruments in the nature of
shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed in the office involuntary dealings with respect to unregistered lands, if made
of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. in the form sufficient in law, shall likewise be admissible to
record under this section.
(a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a
Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary

Page | 10
 (e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds
Philippine Islands, with power to hear and determine all
under this section, he shall collect the same amount of fees
prescribed for similar services for the registration of deeds or questions arising upon such applications, and also have
instruments concerning registered lands.
jurisdiction over such other questions as may come before it
under this Act, subject, however, to the right of appeal, as
Sec. 1, P.D. No. 892;
hereinafter provided. The proceedings upon such applications
Section 1. The system of registration under the Spanish shall be proceedings in rem against the land and the
Mortgage Law is discontinued, and all lands recorded under
buildings and improvements thereon, and the decrees shall
said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be
considered as unregistered lands. operate directly on the land and the buildings and improvements
thereon, and vest and establish title thereto.
All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for
registration of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known
The court shall hold its sittings in Manila, but may adjourn from
as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the
effectivity of this decree. Thereafter, Spanish titles cannot be time to time to such other places as the public convenience may
used as evidence of land ownership in any registration require, and may hold sessions at any time in the capital of any
proceedings under the Torrens system. province. In the city of Manila, the Municipal Board, and in the
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered provinces, the provincial boards, shall provide suitable rooms for
under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under the sittings of the Court of Land Registration in the same building
Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended with, or convenient to, the office of the registrar of deeds, and
by Act 3344;
shall provide all necessary books and such printed blanks and
stationery for use in registration proceedings as may be ordered
Sec. 2, Act No. 496, as amended (Land Registration Act).
by the court hereby created.
SECTION 2. A court is hereby established to be called the
The court shall have jurisdiction throughout the Philippine
“Court of Land Registration,” which shall have the exclusive
Archipelago, and shall always be open, except on Sundays and
jurisdiction of all applications for the registration under this Act of
holidays established by law. It shall be a court of record, and
title to land or buildings or an interest therein within the
shall cause to be made a seal, and to be sealed therewith all

Page | 11
orders, process, and papers made by or proceeding from the
court and requiring a seal. All notices, orders, and process of
such court may run into any province and be returnable, as the
court may direct.

The court shall from time to time make general rules and forms
for procedure, conforming as near as may be to practice in
special proceedings in Courts of First Instance, but subject to the
express provisions of this Act and to general laws. Such rules
and forms before taking effect shall be approved by the judges of
the Supreme Court or a majority thereof.

In this Act, except where the context requires a different

construction, the word “court” shall mean the Court of Land
Registration.

Page | 12