Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Land Titles Sec 69 92
Land Titles Sec 69 92
69 TO 92
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 1
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
vendors title takes all the risks and losses consequent to levy was illegal, since they already acquired the property
such failure before it was levied.
The disputed inscription of adverse claim on the TCT However on October 15, 1992, petitioner pointed out
under the name of Uychocde spouses was still in effect the contrary and asked Barrameda spouses to confer with
when the sheriff annotated the notice of levy on them to amicably settle the controversy.
execution thereto. Consequently, he is charged with On November 9, 1992, respondents Barrameda found a
knowledge that the property sought to be levied upon on Notice of auction sale posted on their front gate,
execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or announcing the auction sale of their house and lot.
better than that of the registered owner thereof. Such On November 20, 1992, respondents Barrameda served
notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse a Notice of Third Party Claim upon Sheriff .
claim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the And finally on December 2, 1992, respondents filed
petitioners. with the RTC of Makati a petition for quieting of title
As to whether or not Sajones couple are buyers in good with prayer for preliminary injunction. The petition
faith, the trial court is correct in saying that they are prayed, among others, that the execution sale of the
because they were not aware of the pending case filed property be enjoined, the notice of levy and attachment
by Pilares against Uychocde at the time of the sale of inscribed on the certificate of title be cancelled, and
property by the latter in their favor. that respondents Barrameda be declared the lawful and
At any rate, PD 1529 guarantees to every purchaser of sole owners of the property in question.
registered land in good faith that they can take and hold
the same free from any and all prior claims, liens and The trial court ruled in favor of spouses Rodriguez and
encumbrances except those set forth in the certificate of dismissed respondents Barramedas petition for quieting
tile and those expressly mentioned in the ACT as having of title.
been preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of the It ruled that the respondents adverse claim was
conclusiveness of the certificate of title, which the insufficient to establish their claim over the property.
Torrens system seeks to insure, would be futile and Furthermore respondents as buyers should have
nugatory. registered the title in their names. The court also said
that respondents adverse claim had lost its efficacy
after the lapse of thirty days in accordance with the
(3) RODRIGUEZ v. CA provisions of the PD1529.
Lastly the trial court found that there was collusion
FACTS: Respondent Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo between barrameda and Calingo to transfer the property
were the registered owners of a house and lot, which was to defraud third parties who may have a claim against
mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines, the Calingos.
which mortgage was later absorbed by the Home Mutual However upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision of
Development Fund (HMDF) or Pag-ibig. the trial court. It held that respondents Barramedas
On April 27, 1992, Respondents Calingo and adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was
Respondents Barrameda entered into a contract of sale still effective at the time the property was levied on
with assumption of mortgage where Respondents execution.
Barrameda issued two checks. Consequently, petitioners are with knowledge that the
Respondent Calingo then informed HMDF/Pag-ibig property sought to be levied upon on execution was
about the transaction on 4-23-91. However the letter and encumbered by an interest the same as or better than
affidavit by respondents Calingo, was served upon that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy
HMDF/Pag-ibig on October 2, 1992. cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed
On the other hand, Respondents Barrameda filed with on the certificate of title in favor of the Barramedas.
the RD of Paraaque an affidavit of adverse claim on the Therefore, that the notice of levy could not prevail
property on May 29, 1992. over respondents Barramedas adverse claim.
On June 1, 1992, Respondent Barrameda wrote HMDF, Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the
to confirm the transaction and sought assistance from appellate courts ruling, but the motion was denied.
said office as regards to the procedure for the full
settlement of the mortgage. ISSUE: Whether or not the adverse claim inscribed by
However on July 13, 1992, Spouses Rodriguez caused a respondents prevail over the levy on execution issued by
notice of levy with attachment on real property was another court.
annotated at the back of the certificate of title of the
property in question. Subsequently petitioners counsel RULING: The Court ruled that the adverse claim of
sent a letter to respondents inquiring about the basis of respondent will not prevail over the levy on execution
their occupation of the property in question. issued by another court.
On August 21, 1992, respondents Barrameda paid the The Court in reversing the CA, states that respondents
final settlement for the sale to Calingo. Calingo anchor their claim on the sale, which was never
guaranteed that the property was clear and free from registered under the Torrens system; therefore it cannot
any liens and encumbrances, except the real estate affect third parties.
mortgage assumed by respondents. The Court states that it is the act of registration shall
On October 7, 1992, respondents executed a joint be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar
affidavit claiming ownership over the property, and that as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under
this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 2
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where together with such instrument, except in some cases or
the land lies. upon the order of the court for cause shown. In case the
In the case at bar, the deed of sale with assumption of person in possession refuses or fails to surrender the
mortgage executed by respondents is a registrable same to the RD so that a voluntary document may be
instrument. In order to bind third parties, it must be registered and a new certificate issued, Sec. 107 of P.D.
registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It No. 1529 states:
was not shown in this case that there was justifiable Where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered
reason why the deed could not be registered. Hence, the by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to
remedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for surrender the owners duplicate, the party in
registration. interest may file a petition in court to compel
According to SC, the annotation of an adverse claim surrender of the same to the RD. The court, after
is a measure designed to protect the interest of a hearing, may order the registered owner or any
person over a piece of real property where the person withholding the duplicate certificate to
registration of such interest or right is not otherwise surrender the same and direct the entry of a new
provided for by the Land Registration Act, and serves certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If
as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with the person withholding the duplicate certificate is
said property that someone is claiming an interest on not amenable to the process of the court, of if for
the same or a better right than the registered owner any reason the outstanding owners duplicate cannot
thereof. be delivered, the court may order the annulment of
the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate
of title in lieu thereof.
(4) LIGON v. CA Pursuant to Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529, the distinction
between the RTCs general and the limited jurisdiction
FACTS: The Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP), when acting merely as a cadastral court has been
by virtue of an absolute deed, sold to Iglesia ni Kristo eliminated. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the
(INK) 2 parcels of land in Tandang Sora, Barrio Culiat, change has simplified registration proceedings by
QC. It was stipulated therein that IDP shall undertake to conferring upon the RTCs the authority to act not only on
evict all squatters in the property within 45 days from applications for original registration but also over
the execution of the contract. IDP failed to do this, petitions filed after original registration of title, with
hence, INK sued for specific performance with damages. power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
IDP, on the other hand, alleged that it was INK which such applications or petitions.
violated the contract by delaying the payment of the Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition
purchase price and sought to have the contract of sale which can be filed by one who wants to compel another
rescinded. to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does
Thereafter, INK filed a motion for partial summary not preclude a party to a pending case to include as
judgment on the ground that there was actually no incident therein the relief stated under said section,
genuine issue as to any material fact; the TC granted. especially if the subject certificates of title to be
A year after, INK filed a motion in the same case surrendered are intimately connected with the subject
seeking to compel Leticia Ligon (petitioner), who was in matter of the principal action. The principal action is
possession of the certificates of title over the properties based on expediency and in accordance with the policy
as mortgagee of IDP, to surrender said certificates to the against multiplicity of suits.
RD of QC for the registration of the absolute deed of sale The order directing the surrender of the certificates to
in its name. Ligon allegedly refused and/or failed to the RD in order that the deed be registered in favor of
deliver the certificates despite repeated requests. INK cannot in any way prejudice her rights and interests
To this, Ligon opposed saying that (a) IDP was not served as mortagee, since any lien annotated on the previous
copy of the motion, (b) ownership of INK over the certificates which subsists shall be incorporated or
property was still in issue, (c) and that the trial court had carried over to the new certificates of title.
no jurisdiction as the motion involved the registrability of
the document of sale, and she was not made a party in
the main case. (5) MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS v. CA
The TC granted INKs motion and ordered petitioner to
surrender the certificates of title in open court for the FACTS: Magdalena Estate Inc. (MEI) owned a subdivision
registration of the absolute deed of sale in the latters located at QC. It has a total area of 355,490 sq.m. The
name and the annotation of the mortgage executed in lot in question was lot 15, blk 18 measuring 21,460 sq.m.
favor of petitioner on the new certificates (to be issued A part of this lot measuring 7,100 sq.m was initially set
to INK). Upon Ligons motion, the TC redirected her to aside as the subdivisions open space which will be
deliver the documents to the RD of QC. allotted to recreational zones such as parking,
playground.
ISSUE: W/N INK has a superior right to the possession of Subsequently, the subdivision plan was amended by
the owners copies of the certificated of title. substituting the earlier designated open space with
another lot covering the same area. This was approved
HELD: YES. Under our land registration law, no voluntary by QC City Council. Lot 15 thereafter was approved to be
instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds alienated.
unless the owners duplicate certificate is presented
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 3
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
A part of lot 15 was sold to DBP by way of dacion en again, Doronilla Resources sought to have a similar
pago and the remaining part was sold to third parties. affidavit of adverse claim on Winmar's TCT registered.
The Magdalena homeowners association brought a suit to LRC rendered a decision denying the registration of the
recover the original open space. They have caused a affidavit of adverse claim.
notice of lis pendens be recorded at the Registry of Doronilla Resources appealed to the CA, which upheld
Deeds. the decision of the LRC. Thus the case at bar.
The lower court rendered a favorable decision for
petitioner but was appealed to CA to obtain favorable ISSUE: W/N the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at
modifications. While the case was pending, MEI and DBP the back of the TCT precludes the subsequent
filed in separate motions praying for the cancellation of registration on the same or successor TCT of an adverse
the notice of lis pendens. These motions were favorably claim
granted.
HELD: NO. The two remediesnotice of lis pendens and
ISSUE: W/N the CA had jurisdiction to take cognizance of adverse claimare NOT contradictory or repugnant to
and grant the motion to cancel notice of lis pendens one another; nor does the existence of one automatically
since no motion had ever been filed in court a quo. nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be
considered unnecessary, it would be the notice of lis
HELD: CA has jurisdiction. Under Rule 14 sec 24 of the pendens and not the annotation of adverse claim which is
Rules of Court and Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis more permanent and cannot be cancelled without
pendens is proper in the following cases: adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim
a) an action to recover possession of real involved. Both are intended to protect the interest of a
estate claimant by posing as notices and caution to those
b) an action to quiet title thereto involved with the property that it is subject to a claim.
c) an action to remove clouds thereon Moreover, the annotation at the back of Winmar's TCT
d) an actionfor partition; and that the property is subject to the resolution of the 2nd
e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court affidavit of adverse claim does NOT amply protect the
directly affecting the title to the land or rights and interests of Doronilla Resources. It cannot
the use or occupation thereof or the serve as notice and warning to third persons dealing with
buildings thereon. the property that someone is claiming an interest in the
The notice of lis pendens- that the real property is same or a better title than that of the registered owner.
involved in an action- is ordinarily recorded w/o the A consulta is the reference of a question to the
intervention of the court where it is pending. The notice Commissioner of Land Registration by a RD when he is in
is an incident in an action. The cancellation therefore is doubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed or
also a mere incident and may be ordered by the Court instrument is presented to him for registration.
having jurisdiction over it at any time. In the case at bar,
CA has jurisdiction by virtue of the perfection of the
petitioners appeal. The issue of questions relating to (7) LOPEZ v. ENRIQUEZ
merits cannot be raised for the first time in appeal does
not apply to mere incidents such as cancellation of FACTS:
notice of lis pendens. Sandoval and Ozaeta filed an application for registration
of title in the RTC. RTC subsequently granted their
request. The heirs of Enriquez filed a motion alleging
(6) A. DORONILLA RESOURCES v. CA that Sandoval and Ozaeta sold the lots in question to
their deceased father, Eugenio Lopez, Sr.
FACTS: Purita Landicho owned a parcel of land.
Eventually, Blue Chips Projects, Inc purchased and However, the decision of the RTC on the application for
registered in its own name said lot (1,256,269 sqm) in registration of Sandoval and Ozaeta being final and
San Mateo, Rizal. executory, the LRA issued titles in their names. The
In 1972, Doronilla Resources Development Inc. availed petitioners (heirs) filed a motion to nullify said OCTs.
of the remedy of lis pendens, which was annotated on They also applied with the Register of Deeds for the
Blue Chips' TCT. A year after, Alfonso Doronilla (the annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the back of the
president) filed an affidavit of adverse claim for OCTs. The LRA denied said application on the basis of the
registration on Blue Chips' TCT on the ground that the notice not being registrable solely because of the motion
property is a portion of a big parcel of land which was to nullify the OCTs. CA affirmed the LRAs decision.
purchased by Doronilla Resources from Alfonso Doronilla.
However, RD of Rizal (resp) denied the registration of ISSUE:
the affidavot of the adverse claim on the ground that a W/N the petitioners motion to declare void the decrees
notice of lis pendens remain registered on the TCT issued by the LRA is a proper basis for filing the notice of
involved. Doronilla Resources elevated the matter en lis pendens?
consulta to the Land Registration Commission, which
denied the registration of the adverse claim as well. HELD:
In 1973, Blue Chips sold the land in favor of Winmar No.
Poultry Farms, Inc. Its TCT had an annotation at the back As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis
that the land is subject to a resolution by the LRC. Once pendens should contain a statement of the institution of
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 4
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
(8) SLDC v. CA
* END *
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 5