SPS. Omengan v. Philippine National Bank and Manuel HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN VS.

IAC and MARIA MARRON,

Acierto GR NO. L-69303

The PNB approved Omengans application for a revolving Who has a better right? The party who bought it with a
credit line of 3 million which was secured by two notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of her title or
the party in whose favour the notice of lis pendens was
residential lots registered under the name of the Spouses
made?
However the half a million remaining amount was
withheld because of the letter sent by Edgars sister An action brought by Marron to compel Bazar to execute
stating that the property is co-owned by them and that a registrable Deed of Absolute sale in favour of the
the half a million amount be held in abeyance. former
Thereafter a change in the branch manager of PNB While the aforementioned case is pending the private
caused the release of the remaining half million pesos to respondent cause the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens and while the case is pending it appears that
petitioner and the approval of 2 million increase in the
Bazar executed an absolute sale in favour of Marasigan
latters credit line subject to the consent and approval of carrying the notice of lis pendens on the new title
Edgars sisters. Thereafter judgment was rendered in favour of the
But petitioner failed to secure the consent and so PNB plaintiff (So title is now on Marron)
hold the release of the additional amount resulting to And cause the issuance of new title in the name of
Omengan demanding such amount and claiming that the Marron and cancelling the title of Maria Marasigan
condition for its release was not part of his credit line Marron filed another case to have Marasigans TCT be
cancelled
agreement with PNB because it was added without his
RTC DISMISSED Marrons complaint for being premature
consent, which was denied by PNB thus the filling of
CA ruled that Maron is entitled to the property under
complaint by the petitioner for breach of contract. litigation by virtue of the notice of lis pendens annotated
The RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner while the CA at the back of Maria Marasigans title.
reversed and set aside the RTC decision hence the Now Maria Marasigan elevated the case to the Supreme
present petition. Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that first because of the The Supreme Court ruled that although Marasigan
petitioners failure to obtain consent from his sisters acquired the property in question from the Bazaars
pursuant to a deed of absolute sale which was executed
there is no meeting of the minds and no breach of
four months before the filling of the complaint by
contract could be attributed Marron, the transaction became effective as against third
And that the business of a bank is one affected with person only after the said complaint was filed when it
public interest , any investigation previously conducted was registered.
on the property offered by petitioners as collateral did It is clear that the registration of the deed of sale over
not preclude PNB from considering the new information the subject property was definitely subsequent to the
annotation of lis pendens
on the same property for a subsequent loan and that by
The effect of Lis pendens carrying over the title of
the time the application for a nincrease was considered,
Marasigan is that any right that may thereafter acquire
however, PNB already had the reason to suspect on the property is subject to the eventuality of the suit.
petitioners claim of exclusive ownership
That the rule that persons dealing with registered lands
can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to
banks.
CAMPILLO VS.COURT OF APPEALS, SIMPLICIO SANTOS RTC and C.A. ruled in favour of Orais hence the case
elevated to the Supreme Court
The issue of the case is who has the better right between The Supreme Court ruled that although the disputed land
Simplicio Santos who earlier purchased the subject land was actually held by a Pelagio Costelo, the latter
from Tomas De Vera but failed to register the same or executed a document acknowledging Orais as owner of
Petitioner Sostenes Campillo who subsequently the land and that Orais granted him the right to possess
purchased them at an execution sale in a judgment for As a consequence, Orais came to be in constructive
sum of money against Tomas De Vera and obtained possession of said land.
certificate of title That Sanchez was no longer its owner when he sold it to
Claiming to be the owner of the subject land by reason of Ruizo because it was already purchased possessed and
previous sale to him by Tomas De Vera, Simplicio filed an registered by Orais.
action to annul the notice of sale and public action of the
subject land. VILLAMIL v. VILLAROSA
In resisting the complaint the petitioner alleged that he is Villamil filed a complaint for annulment of title and
an innocent purchaser for value and that the supposed reconveyance against Spouses Tolentino and Villarosa.
previous sale could not be preferred over the levy and Alleging that the petitioner were the registered owner of
sale at public auction because it was not registered. the subject land
The trial court sustained the validity of the levy sale This was after he discovered that a residential house is
While the Court of Appeals ruled that the subject lots being constructed by Villarosa and that their names in
could not be legally levied upon to satisfy the judgment the Register of Deeds for the subject land was cancelled
debt because at the time of the execution sale, the and reissued in the name of Paterno who executed a
judgment debtor having previously sold the said deed of assignment in favour of Spouses Tolentino and
properties was no longer the owner thereof then latter executing a deed of absolute sale in favour of
SC reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals Villarosa. Furthermore the petitioner assert that the
Stating that a sale of real estate would only become deed of sale of Paterno is a falsified document making all
legally effective against third person only from the date of its the subsequent transfer void.
registration. Villarosa for his part claimed that he is a purchaser in
good faith.
That the properties were actually attached and levied RTC ruled that Paternos TCT, spouses Tolentino and
upon at a time when said properties stood in the official Villarosa null and void. That the deed of absolute sale
records of Registry of Deeds as still owned by and executed by Sps. Villamil in favour of Paterno is fake; that
registered in the name of Tomas De Vera making the Paterno is a fictitious person and that Spouses Tolentino
attachment, levy and subsequent sale of the properties and Villarosa are both buyers in bad faith.
valid and legal. On appeal the CA reversed the the decision of the lower
As provided under Sec 51 (b) No deed of mortgage, lease court and declared void the title of Sps. Tolentino and
or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to Paterno but upheld the validity of the title of Villarosa
convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a indicating that he is a purchaser for value in good faith
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a Thus the petition before the Supreme Court.
contract between the parties and as evidence of The Supreme Court ruled that Villarosa is a purchaser in
authority to the Register of Deeds. good faith stating that
Torrens system registration is the operative act that gives Villarosa merely responded to a newspaper
validity to the transfer or creates a hen upon the land. advertisement for the sale of a parcel of land with an
unfinished structure
VIACRUCIS v. ORAIS and MALAZARTE That he was then given a copy of title and was able to
verify before the Register of Deeds the authenticity of
Orais brought an action to establish their title to a land of the title.
4 hectares which is in possession of Viacrucis which the That well-settled is the rule that every person dealing
former alleged that it is a part of a bigger lot sold to them with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of
by its registered owner Pedro Sanchez by virtue of deed the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will in
of sale. no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to
On the other hand Viacrucis averred that they were the determine the condition of the property.
owners of said 4 hectare land. That Sanchez executed That a forged document may become the root of a valid
another deed of sale in favour of Balentin Ruizo which title if the property has already been transferred from
was then sold to them (Viacrucis) and that the deed of the name of the owner to that of the forger . That a
sale in favour of Orais is simulated and that Orais had person who deals with registered property in good faith
never been in possession of the land and that the same will acquire good title from a forger and be absolutely
had remained in the name of Sanchez for tax purposes protected by Torrens title
Egao v CA, 174 SCRA 484 G.R. No. 79787, 29 June 1989 Sale entered into by the parties. Although the petitioners
denied the validity of the Deed of Sale the court held that it
The respondents Bontilao filed a motion for quieting the was notarized and a notarial documenthas in its favor the
title and recovery of possession and ownership against presumption of regularity. When the land was sold to the
the petitioners. Apparently, they claim they are the respondents, they know that the OCT is still registered under
owners of the parcel of land by virtue of the deed of sale the name of the petitioners. Thus, they are not considered to
they entered into with Roberto Marfori to whom the be innocent purchaser as contrary to the ruling of the CA.
petitioners allegedly sold their land to. Where a purchaser neglects to make the necessary
The Egaos acquired their land title by virtue of a free inquiries and closes his eyes to facts which should put a
patent and transferred their ownership in favor of reasonable man on his guard as to the possibility of the
Marfori by virtue of a deed of sale. However, existence of a defect in his vendor's title, and relying on the
the Certificate of Title was not transferred in Marforis belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor,
favor. purchases the property without making any further
Upon purchase of the land from Marfori, the investigation, he cannot claim that he is a purchaser in good
respondents introduced improvements thereon and paid faith for value. A private individual cannot bring an action for
taxes for the property. reversion or any action which would have an effect of
However, the petitioners illegally occupied portions of canceling a free patent and the certificate of title issued on
the land. Petitioner answers that they are the true owner the basis thereof since the land covered will form part again
of the land by virtue of the Certificate of Title issued by of the public domain. Sec. 124 of the Public Land Act provides
the Register of Deeds pursuant to their Free Patent. that deeds of sale of patented lands, perfected within the
The lower court ruled in favor of Egao. Upon appeal, the prohibited five (5) year period are null and void thus the
CA reversed the decision of the lower court on grounds Egaos have no title to pass to Marfori and nobody can dispose
that the main issue should be whether Egao can that which does not belong to him. The respondents are not
validly sell the land to Marfori who subsequently innocent purchasers for value with no standing to question
transferred the ownership to the respondents. the rights of the petitioners over the land and to file an action
The CA holds both Egao and Marfori to be in pari delicto to quiet the title. The petitioners remained to be the
for violating the 5-year restriction provided by registered owners and entitled to remain in
Commonwealth 141 against encumbrance physicalpossession of the disputed property. Respondents are
and alienation of public lands acquired thru free ordered to deliver the OCT to the petitioners without
patent or homestead patent. They cannot therefore prejudice to an action for reversion of the land to be
obtain affirmative relief. It also declares the instituted by the Solicitor General for the State.
respondents as innocent purchasers for value who the
obtained the duplicate of the OCT still in the name of
the Egaos from Marfori and ownership was transferred
to them by physical possession of the property. It thus
promulgated judgment holding the respondents the
absolute owners of the land in dispute, to cancel the OCT
of the petitioner and its transfer thereof to the
respondents and to surrender peaceful possession of the
land to the respondents.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners validly transferred their

ownership to Marfori to resolve the rights of the respondents
over the land in dispute?

Ruling: The SC holds that based on the adduced evidence, the

Egaos sold the lot to Marfori within the 5-year restriction
period provided by law on Free Patent based on the Deed of
Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals; July 5, 1996 entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate
Facts: of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of
thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of
The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a Notice of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled
Levy on Execution from a certificate of Title covering a parcel upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in
of real property. The inscription was caused to be made by interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no
the private respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N- second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be
79073 of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, issued in the registered by the same claimant.
name of the spouses Uychocde, and was later carried over to
and annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest
of the same registry, issued in the name of the spouses may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the
Sajonas, who purchased the parcel of land from the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and
Uychocdes, and are now the petitioners in this case. the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of
the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment
The subject property was bought by Sajonas spouses on as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged
September 1983 and caused the annotation of their adverse to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered
claim on August 1984. The Deed of Sale was executed upon cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing
the full payment of the purchase price and the same was shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous,
registered only on August 1985. it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one
thousand pesos, nor more than five thousand pesos, in its
Meanwhile, without the petitioners' knowledge, there has discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may
been a compromise agreement between the spouses withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of
Uychocde and Pilares (Uychocde's judgment creditor), and a Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.
notice of levy on execution was issued on February 12, 1985.
On February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff Roberto Garcia of Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the
Quezon City presented said notice of levy on execution apparent inconsistency between the portions of the law such
before the Register of Deeds of Marikina and the same was that the provision on cancellation of adverse claim by verified
annotated at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry No. 123283. petition would serve to qualify the provision on the effectivity
period. The law, taken together, simply means that the
Issue: cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it
Which should be preferred between the notice of levy on ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated
execution and the deed of absolute sale. The Deed of and shall continue as a lien upon the property. For if the
Absolute Sale was executed on September 4, 1984, but was adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the
registered only on August 28, 1985, while the notice of levy lapse of said period, its cancellation is no longer necessary
on execution was annotated six (6) months prior to the and the process of cancellation would be a useless ceremony.
registration of the sale on February 12, 1985.
To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as
Decision: absolute and without qualification limited to thirty days
The annotation of the adverse claim is equivalent to notice to defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for
third persons of the interest of the claimant. The provision of the remedy of an inscription of adverse claim, as the
the law (PD 1529) that the adverse claim is only valid for 30 annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to
days cannot be upheld. Clearly, the intention of the law is protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property
otherwise as may be gleaned on the following discussion: where the registration of such interest or right is not
otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act
Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part or interest 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and
in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising serves as a warning to third parties dealing with said property
subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no that someone is claiming an interest or the same or a better
other provision is made in this decree for registering the right than the registered owner thereof.
same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his
alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a Petition was granted. The inscription of the notice of levy on
reference to the number of certificate of title of the execution on TCT No. N-109417 is ordered CANCELLED.
registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a
description of the land in which the right or interest is
claimed.

The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state
the adverse claimants residence, and a place at which all
notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be