You are on page 1of 16

First Semester, A.Y.

2020 - 2021

Due Diligence
How to Conduct Due Diligence in Dealings
Involving Land
Land Titles and Deeds

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Cubillan, Honato, Llaban Atty. Hazel Espina


JD – NT II – EH 306 Professor
USC School of Law and Governance USC School of Law and Governance
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Conducting Due Diligence ........................................................................................................................ 5
Jurisprudence on Due Diligence .............................................................................................................. 5
Resource Person Interview .................................................................................................................... 10
Atty. Rionald J. Gonzales........................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 1. Summary steps in conducting due diligence with regard the certificate of title. .. 11
Figure 2. Other modes of conducting due diligence. ................................................................. 12
Geodetic Engineer D’arthagnan Cagandahan ........................................................................................ 13
Almae Joy Villamor ................................................................................................................................ 14
Additional Material................................................................................................................................... 15

1
Introduction

In an ideal setting, buying and registering lands would be as easy as what the law tells
us how it should be done. According to Art 14 of PD 1529, the enumerated qualified persons
can file in the Court of First Instance, now Regional Trial Court, an application for registration
for an original title of land which, if granted, would result to the registration of the land under
the Torrens System. This system of registration of land transaction issues a certificate of title
which attest to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property described therein,
subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves. 1
Consequently, once the title is registered, the owners can rest secure on their ownership and
possession, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the “mirador
de su casa,” to avoid the possibility of losing his land 2

Complementing the purpose of the Torrens System are two of its guiding tenets which is
the “curtain doctrine” and the “mirror doctrine”, both of which provide that one who is dealing
with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and need not
go beyond the title to determine the condition of the property. These doctrines dispense the
necessity of inquiring further and of proving ownership by long complicated documents the
correctness of the title and assure that all the necessary information regarding ownership is on
the face of the certificate of title.3 As such, defective title, or one procured through fraud and
misrepresentation may be a source of a completely legal and valid title, provided that the buyer
is an innocent third person who, in good faith, relied on the correctness of the certificate of
title. This buyer is called an innocent buyer for value.4

However, based on the real world, as can be gleaned in our jurisprudence, relying only
on the certificate of title in purchasing land is irresponsible and ill-advised. Although trust on the
certificate of title should ideally be sufficient, it is unadvisable, if not outright dangerous, to rely
only on good faith. As buyers of properties of which prices could literally mean life and death to
most, conducting due diligence not only on the certificate of title but also on the total condition
of the land could signify a great difference.

Perusing the provisions of PD 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, nowhere can
you see the word due diligence nor its definition, especially one that is related to dealings
involving land. Due diligence was not even discussed in the Property Registration Decree and
Related Laws book of Judge Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (2018). Jurisprudence also did not define due
diligence but only listed the activities which constitute justifiable compliance of due diligence in
purchasing land properties, which we will discuss later.

1
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000, per Justice Puno.
2
Legarda v. Saleeby, GR No. 8936, October 2, 1915.
3
Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, February 27, 2013.
4
Dy v. Aldea, GR No. 219500, August 9, 2017, citing Locsin v. Hizon, GR No. 204369, September 17, 2014.

2
Nonetheless, the basis of due diligence can be derived from the rule of caveat emptor
which literally means buyer beware. The rule of caveat emptor reminds purchasers that their
rights are always limited by the rights of the seller as stated in the certificate of title such as the
liens, mortgages, and other encumbrances. As such, purchasers are cautioned to not only rely
on the copy of the title or the owner’s duplicate of title and must check further if the seller’s
certificate of title corresponds to the public record of the certificate in the Registry of Deeds.5
The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of the
vendor and one who buys without checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks and losses
consequent to such failure.6

In the case of Caram v. Laureta,7 the Supreme Court said that Caram is a registrant in
bad faith, thus there was no registration in this case at all. Where the purchaser knew or ought
to know that there were circumstances at the time, and even at the time of registration, which
would reasonably require the purchaser to investigate to determine whether defects existed in
the vendor’s title; and that, instead, he willfully closed his eyes to the possibility of the
existence of these flaws, for failure to exercise the measure of precaution which may be
required of a prudent man in a like situation, he cannot be called a purchaser in good faith. As
such, they must suffer the consequences of their failure to exercise the ordinary care expected
of a buyer in real estate.

In the case of Roxas v. Court of Appeals, et. al.,8 Supreme Court where the land sold is
in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the
certificates of title and make inquiries concerning the rights of the actual possessor. Indeed,
one who buys property with full knowledge of the flaws and defects of the title of his vendor
and of a pending litigation over the property gambles on the result of the litigation and is bound
by the outcome of his indifference. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put
a reasonable man on guard and then claim that he acted in good faith believing that there was
no defect in the title of the vendor.

In the case of Mathay v. Court of Appeals,9 here, Supreme Court said that petitioners
cannot be categorized as purchasers in good faith. Prior to the fencing of subject land, neither
they (Mathays) nor their predecessors-in-interest (Banayo and Pugay) ever possessed the
same. In fact, at the time the said property was sold to petitioners, the private respondents
were not only in actual possession of the same but also built their houses thereon, cultivated it
and were in full enjoyment of the produce and fruits gathered therefrom. Although it is a
recognized principle that a person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond its

5
Registry of Deeds of Negros Occidental v. Anglo, GR No. 171804, August 5, 2015.
6
Ducasin v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-32723, October 28, 1977.
7
GR No. L-28740, February 24, 1981.
8
GR No. 138660, February 5, 2004 citing Liu v. Loy, G.R. No. 145982, 3 July 2003, citing Toledo-Banaga v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 127941, 28 January 1999, 302 SCRA 331 and Domingo v. Roces, G.R. No. 147468, 9 April 2003;
Development Bank of the Phils. v. CA, 387 Phil. 283 (2000).
9
GR No. 115788, September 17, 1988.

3
certificate of title, it is also a firmly settled rule that where there are circumstances which would
put a party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold to him,
such as the presence of occupants/tenants thereon, it is, of course, expected from the
purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the
occupants, i.e., whether or not the occupants possess the land en concepto de dueño, in
concept of owner. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of
the premises involved is a safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually takes. Should he
find out that the land he intends to buy is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who,
as in this case, is not in actual possession, it would then be incumbent upon the purchaser to
verify the extent of the occupant's possessory rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to take
such precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part and would thereby prelude him
from claiming or invoking the rights of a "purchaser in good faith."

In the case of Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals,10 here, the Court said that when Torres,
the purchaser, herself visited the property she carefully evaded seeing Crisostomo personally,
the actual occupant thereof, who could have easily enlightened her as to the true owner (Rollo,
p. 116). Such unnatural behavior points more convincingly to the fact that she was aware that
San Jose was not its real owner. Thus, she is a not a buyer in good faith and should have
exercised the rule of caveat emptor.

In the case of Leung Yee vs. F. L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson11, this Court
held: One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor
cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith, as against the true owner of the
land or of an interest therein, and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of
facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to
acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor.

In Barrios v. Court of Appeals,12 the Court noted several facts which were reasonably
suspicious as to have put respondents upon inquiry as to the alleged rights of the vendor, but
which they disregarded, thereby precluding them from invoking the benefits of a purchaser in
good faith.

Thus, based on these catana of cases, the doctrine that we can derive from is that the
mirror doctrine generally applies to purchasers of land in good faith who relied on the face of
the title in buying the land, but if the buyer has knowledge or ought to know of some defects of
the title or is faced with circumstances which would put a him on guard and prompt him to
investigate or inspect the property being sold to him yet he did not act on it, then he becomes a
buyer in bad faith who takes all the risk attached with the land he bought. Therefore, in a world

10
GR No. 91383, May 31, 1991.
11
G.R. No. L-11658, February 15, 1918.
12
GR No. L-32531, August 3, 1977.

4
where one cannot just rely on good faith of land sellers, exerting effort in conducting due
diligence is unquestionably the rational thing to do as responsible land buyers.

Conducting Due Diligence

When buying land, due diligence on the seller and the land itself is a must. Do not rely
solely on the title furnished by the seller. One must conduct his own investigation by going to
the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and verify the title himself. The LRA has microfilms
of land titles in the Philippines. Although this is still a work in progress, most land titles are
already in their database. If the title is not in the LRA, visit the Register of Deeds where the
land is located. A personal verification is of utmost importance to determine if there are liens or
encumbrances on the property.

Ascertain if the land is subject of litigation. Go to each and every city to determine if
there is a pending case. Visit the Office of the City Prosecutor to ascertain if the seller has a
pending criminal case subject of a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor. Personally
conduct an ocular inspection of the land to see if there are occupants, lessees and informal
settlers. It must be noted that the buyer is obliged to respect the existing lease on the
property.

Jurisprudence on Due Diligence

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,vs. JUAN F. VILLA

[G.R. No. 213241]

PNB fell short in exercising the degree of diligence expected from bank and financial
institutions. We hereby quote with approval the disquisition of the appellate court:

Thus, before approving a loan application, it is a standard operating practice for these
institutions to conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered for mortgage and to
verify the genuineness of the title to determine the real owner thereof. The apparent purpose of
an ocular inspection is to protect the "true owner" of the property as well as innocent third
parties with a right, interest or claim thereon from a usurper who may have acquired a
fraudulent certificate of title thereto. Here, [the] PNB has failed to exercise the requisite due
diligence in ascertaining the status and condition of the property being offered to it as security
for the loan before it approved the same

Clearly, the PNB failed to observe the exacting standards required of banking institutions
which are behooved by statutes and jurisprudence to exercise greater care and prudence
before entering into a mortgage contract.

5
No credible proof on the records could substantiate the claim of PNB that a physical
inspection of the property was conducted. We agree with both the RTC and CA that if in fact it
were true that ocular inspection was conducted, a suspicion could have been raised as to the
real status of the property. By failing to uncover a crucial fact that the mortgagors were not the
possessors of the subject property, We could not lend credence to the claim of the bank that an
ocular inspection of the property was conducted. What further tramples upon PNB' s claim is
the fact that, as shown on the records, it was Vila who was religiously paying the real property
tax due on the property from 1989 to 1996, another significant fact that could have raised a red
flag as to the real ownership of the property. The failure of the mortgagee to take
precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part and would thereby preclude it from
invoking that it is a mortgagee in good faith.

Before approving a loan application, it is standard operating procedure for banks and
financial institutions to conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered for mortgage and to
determine the real owner(s) thereof. The apparent purpose of an ocular inspection is to protect
the "true owner" of the property as well as innocent third parties with a right, interest or claim
thereon from a usurper who may have acquired a fraudulent certificate of title thereto.

DOMINGO REALTY, INC. and AYALA STEEL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and ANTONIO M. ACERO

[G.R. No. 126236]

Domingo Realty filed a complaint against Antonio Acero, conducting business under the
name A.M. Acero Trading, Victorio, and the Does for recovery of possession of three parcels of
land in Metro Manila. Acero constructed a factory building for manufacture of hollow blocks.

The respondents filed their answer (Acero and Victorio), claiming that Acero merely
leased the land from Victorio who claimed to own the property where the factory stood. Victorio
assailed the TCTs of Domingo Realty, stating that they came from spurious deeds of sale and
that he has been in possession for more than 70 years.

Court emphasized the need for prospective parties to a contract involving titled lands to
exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent person in ensuring the legality of the title, and
the accuracy of the metes and bounds of the lot embraced therein, by undertaking
precautionary measures:

It is advisable that such parties:

6
(1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of
the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority;

(2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the
boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the technical
description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management
Bureau;

(3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot;

(4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true
and legal ownership of the lot in question;

(5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and

(6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot
will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties.

LOCSIN vs. HIZON

[G.R. No. 204369]

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the
time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person's claim. As such, a
defective title or one the procurement of which is tainted with fraud and misrepresentationmay
be the source of a completely legal and valid title, provided that the buyer is an innocent third
person who, in good faith, relied on the correctness of the certificate of title, or an innocent
purchaser for value.

Complementing this is the mirror doctrine which echoes the doctrinal rule that every
person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued therefor and is in no way obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition
of the property. The recognized exceptions to this rule are stated as follows:

A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring further except when the party has actual knowledge
of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or
when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient
facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in
litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the
vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an

7
innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the
protection of the law.

Having knowledge of the foregoing facts, Bernardo and Carlos, should have been
impelled to investigate the reason behind the arrangement. They should have been pressed to
inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation in order to protect Carlos' interest.
It should have struck them as odd that it was Locsin, not Bolos, who sought the recovery of
possession by commencing an ejectment case against Aceron, and even entered into a
compromise agreement with the latter years after the purported sale in Bolos' favor. Instead,
Bernardo and Carlos took inconsistent positions when they argued for the validity of the
transfer of the property in favor of Bolos, but in the same breath prayed for the enforcement of
the compromise agreement entered into by Locsin.

GUILLERMO ADRIANO v. ROMULO PANGILINAN

[G.R. No. 137471]

Pangilinan failed to observe due diligence in the grant of the loan and in the execution of the
real estate mortgage. Pangilinan testified that he was engaged in the real estate business,
including the grant of loans secured by real property mortgages.

Thus, he was expected:

1. to ascertain the status and condition of the properties offered to him as


collaterals

2. as well as to verify the identities of the persons he transacts business with

3. he cannot simply rely on a hasty examination of the property offered to him


as security and the documents backing them up.

4. He should also verify the identity of the person who claims to be the
registered property owner.

The ocular inspection respondent conducted was primarily intended to appraise the
value of the property in order to determine how much loan he would grant. He did not verify
whether the mortgagor was really the owner of the property sought to be mortgaged. Because
of this, he must bear the consequences of his negligence.

“Loss brought about by the concurrent negligence of two persons shall be borne
by the one who was in the immediate, primary and overriding position to prevent
it. In the present case, the mortgagee — who is engaged in the business of
lending money secured by real estate mortgages — could have easily avoided the
loss by simply exercising due diligence in ascertaining the identity of the impostor
who claimed to be the registered owner of the property mortgaged”

8
In any event, respondent is not precluded from availing himself of proper remedies against
Angelina Salvador and her cohorts.

RAMONA LIZA L. DE VERA vs LILIA V. DOMINGO AND SPOUSES RADELIA AND


ALFRED SY

[G.R. No. 195871]

Good faith is the honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of
another. It means the "freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a
person on inquiry."

A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and fair price for
the same. As an examination of the records shows, the petitioners were not innocent
purchasers in good faith and for value. Their failure to investigate Sy's title despite the nearly
simultaneous transactions on the property that ought to have put them on inquiry manifested
their awareness of the flaw in Sy's title. That they did not also appear to have paid the full price
for their share of the property evinced their not having paid true value

A TCT DERIVED FROM A DUPLICATE OWNER’S COPY FROM A LOSS OF THE


ORIGINAL MANDATES GREATER VIGILANCE

The petitioners lacked vigilance as buyers. Showing that the property was unfenced and vacant
is not enough, considering that it would be easy for any registered owner to lose property over
illegal occupation. The fact that the TCT was derived from a duplicate owner’s copy reissued by
virtue of loss of the owner’s copy should have alerted them to suspicion.

SIMULTANEOUS TRANSACTIONS CONCERNING THE TITLE SHOULD HAVE CAUSED


SUSPICION

Considering the other circumstances, the deed was allegedly executed on July 14, 1997, the
affidavit executed on July 17, 1997, the petition for issuance of a duplicate copy granted on
August 26, 1997, and on October 31, 1997, a real estate mortgage was executed in favor of
Turingan. The simultaneous series of transactions should have put them on guard

GROSS UNDERVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE PUT THE BUYERS ON


GUARD

Another circumstance is the gross undervaluation of the property, priced at P1M when its actual
market value was at least P14M. There is no acceptable reason to acquiesce to the fraud.

9
Resource Person Interview

To further our understanding with the essence and steps in conducting due diligence as
applied by professionals in the real world, we conducted some interviews. It is the aim of these
interviews to explore beyond the tenets provided for in our jurisprudence and go beyond
simplified explanations for a far more realistic description of the topic.

Atty. Rionald J. Gonzales

First of our interviewees is Atty. Rionald J. Gonzales, a USC Law alumnus and now a
lawyer who focuses on the field of real estate transaction. He shared to us that, to him, due
diligence means to investigate, check, and verify facts, documents, and actual situation of the
land so that the client is duly secured and protected in dealing real estate transaction. In his
field he said that the forms of due diligence that he usually does are the following:

First, they determine whether the land is with a certificate of title or not. If it is covered
by a certificate of title, it must be verified with the Registry of Deeds where the land is situated
to determine if there are notices of encumbrances. Even if it is covered by a certificate of title,
they still conduct a verification process as to the basis of the grant of the title, if it is acquired
from free patent, residential patent, homestead patent, etc. Atty. Gonzales revealed that
before, they used to pay attention to the period of prohibition to sell land during the period
imposed on the certificate of title granted pursuant to patents. The recent law, however, has
already lifted such prohibition.

Next, they check the classification of land with DENR and DAR even if the land is
covered by a certificate of title. By doing this extra step they found out that there are still some
issues that can occur over such titled land. For example, the land is already covered by a
certificate of title but on the cadastral map of the DENR the land is classified as Timberland or a
portion of it. They will also check with the DAR if it is necessary to apply for land conversion,
depending on the purpose of the acquisition of land by the client. If it is Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) and it is issued pursuant to free patent, they will require copies of the documents
submitted to DENR for verification.

Aside from the certificate of title, they will also check the tax declaration of the land
owner and compare the data therein with the certificate of title. They will check with the
Assessor Office concerned if the tax declaration has been updated and with Municipal Assessor
if the annual realty tax has been regularly paid. In either situation, whether the subject land is
with a certificate of title or only with a tax declaration, they will insist to secure chronological
history of the tax declaration for them to better understand how the transfer of tax declaration
been made from 1945 to present. This will help them see if there would be possible claimants
of the land.

10
Figure 1 summarizes the steps in conducting due diligence with regard to the title of the
land.

Determine if
land is titled of
not

Land is with Land is with Tax


Certificate of Title Declaration only

Check with
Verify with
Municipal
Registry of Deeds
Assessor

Check
Verify grant of the
Classification with
title
DENR or DAR

If Free Patent,
require the
documents
submitted

Figure 1. Summary steps in conducting due diligence with regard the certificate of
title.

11
Other conducts of due diligence that they do is, first, they visit the municipal planning
office where the land is situated to verify any future project of the government which might
affect the land subject matter of purchase. This will help them know the zoning classification of
the municipality and if there would be other proposed roads to be implemented.

Second, if possible or applicable, they will require certification from the court if there are
pending cases in the court with the land is situated. They noticed that in some cases, lawyers
forgot to file notice of lis pendens. That’s why this extra little effort to verify the legal condition
of the land would not hurt.

Third, they will request from the families copies of birth certificate or any proof of
relationship. They usually do this if the seller is not the one recognized as the owner based on
the certificate of title.

Lastly, and most importantly, they conduct ocular inspection of the land to see if there
are actual settlers or occupants aside from the landowner/seller.

Figure 2 summarizes the other necessary steps in conducting due diligence.

Inquire with the Municipal Planning


Office

Require certificate of court if with


pending cases

Request birth certificate from the


seller

Conduct ocular inspection

Figure 2. Other modes of conducting due diligence.

As a lawyer, the greatest lesson that he could give with regard to conducting due
diligence is that it is very relative, the law does not clearly define it, thus, it is up to the

12
circumstances surrounding the land if extra effort should be exerted. He also said that some
people are so used to the easy way and the short-cut method of selling lands that most of them
get angry if they request a lot of documents. In one of his experiences in Siargao, he said that
since people are not used to lawyers conducting strict due diligence, then he had a hard time
appeasing his client and explaining to them that doing the right thing is a hard and strenuous
process.

Aside from angry and impatient clients, other challenges that he encounters while
conducting due diligence are the following: timeline in successfully selling the land as there are
many prospect buyers; the documents which are not readily available or issued by concerned
offices; the tracing of genealogy of uncooperative family members; the redundant issuance of
certificates by the DENR and DAR over the same parcel of land; the classification of a title land
which remained a timberland on the DENR map; and the misrepresentations on the application
for free patent.

In hiring a lawyer to conduct due diligence, he revealed that one is usually billed around
P30,000 to P50,000 for such transactions.

Geodetic Engineer D’arthagnan Cagandahan

In our interview with another interviewee, Geodetic Engineer D’arthagnan Cagandahan,


he shared with us some measures and tips in conducting due diligence when purchasing land
both titled and not. As a geodetic engineer, he said that what they usually do is they conduct
land surveys based on the description provided on the face of the certificate of title and other
legal basis like the regional technical description of the land if titled and tax map if the land has
tax declaration only. After surveying the land, they make a survey plan for the land purchaser
to use in applying for certificate of title.

In relation to due diligence, he said there is really a need to hire or employ the expertise of a
geodetic engineer to make sure that the land that your buying is precisely the one pertained on
the certificate of title and other legal description maps and is not under the property of the
adjoining lot owners. He said that what he usually encounters in his work is the confusion as to
where the land is actually situated and the boundaries thereof. He gave his experience as an
example where he had a client who wanted to buy a lot based on the pointed lot of the seller
but when he conducted a legal survey, it turned out that the land that the seller specified is Lot
2, which is under the ownership of the adjoining lot owner, and not Lot 1 which was specified
on the certificate of titles of the seller and the adjoining lot owner. He said that if the seller just
relied on the seller, who turned out to be confused also as to where his land is, his client would
have wasted her resources believing that the land that she would eventually have built a house
upon is not the lot she bought. The worst part there is his client could not have used the

13
defense of good faith had she not correctly decided to employ a geodetic engineer and
conducted a survey of the land since the conditions of the land can be easily determined upon
conducting due diligence. He also said that as a responsible land buyer, conducting due
diligence is not even a question.

On the other hand, buying and conducting land survey on untitled land is a challenge
since tax declaration is just a proof that you are paying tax over that land and is not a strong
evidence as to one’s ownership over such piece of land. He cited a controversial land dispute in
Surigao as an example where a the ownership of a certain land is under legal debate since all
the claimants relied on their tax declaration which said that they are all paying for the same
untitled land. So, if one should buy an untitled lot extra effort in conducting due diligence
should be exerted as to ascertain the exact condition and boundaries of the land. He said that if
there are many adverse claimants then aside from employing a geodetic engineer, a lawyer
who has expertise on land titles and deeds would also be necessary.

In the end of our interview, he told us what he believed is the meaning of a “competent
geodetic engineer” as provided in Domingo v. CA. He said that a competent geodetic engineer
is one that is honest and unbiased to tell his client the real survey condition of the land. It does
not mean, he said, that just because you were employed by a buyer then you will prejudice the
other party to benefit your client. A competent geodetic engineer is a professional GE who
conducts his job as fairly and proficient as he can be with neutrality to tell the real survey
measures of the land in question.

Almae Joy Villamor

Ms. Almae Joy Villamor is a Real Estate Broker and the Assistant Manager for Sales of a
real estate company in Cebu and Davao City. Her field of exposure in real estate is leaned
towards the sales of condominiums and subdivision properties, also widely known as pre-
developed projects. In our short interview, she shared to us that there are lesser things to
check when purchasing a condominium unit than a registered/unregistered lot. She pointed out
three important things for her to consider upon such purchase. She opined that, among others,
it is important to check, first, if the project has already secured a license to sell from the
HLURB. Second, only deal with a licensed broker or sales person. There are a lot of real estate
agencies offering or selling pre-developed projects and the buyer should always observe extra
precaution when dealing with sales agents. Aside from checking the property itself, it would
also help a lot if you are transacting with a licensed professional to help you with your
purchase. Lastly, check the conditions stipulated in the contract to sell and/or the deed of sale.
A lot of clients in the real estate industry often rely on the credibility or fame of the developer of
the project, especially if such developer has established such reputation. However, it would be

14
better if the client goes through the contract and ask questions to the agent, developer, or
lawyer about his/her concerns if there’s any.

Additional Material

Please refer to attached external file sent with this document

15

You might also like