Land Titles and Deeds Torrens Title

(PBCom v. RD, 2020.

A. Torrens System; General CAGUIOA)
Principles
 Purposes of the Torrens System
a. To encourage dealings and  In an unlawful
transactions in land. detainer case, the
b. To lend stability and heirs of a registered
protection to registered owner have better
ownership. right of possession as
 Conclusiveness of Torrens Title against transferees in
o Torrens titles are conclusive an unregistered deed
as to ownership of the of sale, based on the
registered owner. It cannot be principle of
altered or cancelled except in indefeasibility of the
a direct proceeding in Torrens Title (Endaya
accordance with law. v. Villaos, 2016)
 Probate court cannot
include in the  A resolution on the
inventory land which issue of ownership
are covered by does not necessarily
certificates of title in subject the Torrens
the name of persons Title issued over the
other than the disputed realties to a
decedent (Lim v. CA, collateral attack. It
2000) must be borne in mind
that what cannot be
 Property in the name collaterally attacked
of a person other than is the certificate of
the decedent cannot title and not the title
be included by the itself. (Inalvez v.
probate court in the Nool, 2016)
inventory because of
the incontestability of
a Torrens Title  The validity of the
(Mayor v. Tiu , 2016) certificate of title
cannot be assailed in
 Registered owner of an action for quieting
land not barred by res of title, an action for
judicata from filing annulment of title is
second petition for the appropriate
issuance of new remedy to seek the
owner’s duplicate cancellation of a
certificate of title. certificate of title
Reason is the (Leonero v. Sps.
indefeasibility of the Barba, 2009)
 issue a new title in the
 An action for quieting name of the buyer,
title may or may not where the seller’s
be a collateral attack successors-in-interest
on a certificate of title refused to surrender
(Bernas v. Estate of the title and to
Yu Han Yat, 2018 recognize their
CAGUIOA) predecessor’s sale.
The action to quiet
 An action for quieting title was neither a
of title is not a direct nor collateral
proscribed collateral attack on the OCT for
attack on a certificate the buyer was
of title if its primary asserting only that
purpose is to nullify the existing title in the
a certificate of title name of the seller had
(Filipinas Eslon Mfg become inoperative
Corp. V. Heirs of due to the sale to the
Llanes 2019. buyer and thus
CAGUIOA) should be cancelled
(Ono v. Lim, 2010)
 In an accion
publiciana case,  A provisional
affirmative defenses: determination of
(1) That the plaintiff’s ownership in an
OCT was obtained by accion interdictal or
fraud and (2) Of accion publiciana
acquisitive does not pose a “real
prescription, are a attack” on the
collateral attack on Torrens title
the OCT. The RTC (Macutay v. Samoy,
was without 2019. CAGUIOA)
jurisdiction to order
reconveyance to the  A direct attack on the
defendants and certificate of title may
effectively nullify the be in an original
OCT (Heirs of action or in a
Cullado v. Gutierrez, counterclaim. A
2019. CAGUIOA) counterclaim is a new
suit in which the
 An action to quiet title defendant becomes
may be availed of by the plaintiff in respect
the buyer of registered of the counterclaim
land in order to cancel (Leyson v. Bontuyan ,
the title in the name 2005)
of the seller and to
 A third-party
complaint seeking
the nullification of
the certificate of title
is also considered as a
direct attack
(Sarmiento v. CA ,
2005)
 A cross-claim is a
direct attack on a
certificate of title
(Heirs of Sumagang
v. Aznar Enterprises ,
2019)
 The DARAB in its
judgment directed the
cancellation of the
title of Sps. Filcon but
the latter had
transferred the title
pendente lite to Green
Acres. A motion for
execution of the
judgment which seeks
the cancellation of
Green Acres’
certificate of title
would be a collateral
attack (Green Acres
Holding v. Cabral,
2013) o No title to registered land in
 Mandamus does not
lie to compel the LRA
to issue a decree
registration over land
which already has a
certificate of title
issued over it.
Otherwise the same
would be a collateral
attack on the
certificate of title.
Proper remedy is to
directly attack the
extant title
(Rodriguez v. CA,
2013)
 In an unlawful
detainer suit, defense
that plaintiff’s
certificate of title was
fraudulently obtained
is a collateral attack
(Tuason v. Isagon,
2015)
 An application for
original registration of
land which is already
registered would be a
collateral attack on
the certificate of title
(Wee v. Mardo, 2014)
 Petition for
reconstitution would
not be proper to
cancel a TCT because
it would be a
prescribed collateral
attack (Aquino v.
Estate of Aguirre,
2019)
derogation to the title of the
registered owner may be
acquired by prescription or
adverse possession (PRD,
Sec. 47).
 The owner of the
registered land may
file an accion
publiciana even after
10 years from the
accrual of the right of
action pursuant to Sec
47 of the Property
 Registration Decree ownership are presumed to belong to
(Supapo v. De Jesus, the state.
2015)
C. Original Registration
 Sale of the entire co-  Jurisdiction over application over
owned property by original registration is vested with
one co-owner to the RTC (PRD, Sec 14 and 36)
MCIAA was  Delegated Jurisdiction of the MTC:
unenforceable as to o When there is no controversy
heirs who did not or opposition
consent. MCIAA o Contested lots, the value of
could not claim which does not exceed
ownership by adverse P100,000 (B.P 129, Sec 34)
possession since the  Value is determined
property was covered by the affidavit of the
by a Torrens Title claimant or the
(MCIAA v. Jordan , agreement of the
2016) claimants if there are
two or more, or from
 Prescription is the corresponding tax
unavailing not only declaration
against the registered  Appeal from MTC in
owner but also against exercise of its
his heirs because the delegated jurisdiction
latter steps into the is an Appeal to the
shoes of the decedent CA per Rule 41 by
by operation of law filing a notice of
(Umbay v. Alecha, appeal within 15 days
1985) from the notice of
judgment (B.P 129,
 Prescription as well as S34)
laches do not apply to o Venue is the RTC/MTC of
registered land per the place where the land is
Sec 47. of PD 1529 located. If the parcel of land
(Pen Development straddles two areas, the
Corp. v. Leyba, 2017) application may be filed in
either place. The application
may cover two parcels of
B. Regalian Doctrine land provided they are in the
 All lands of public domain belong to same city/jurisdictional area.
the state, and the state is the source
of any asserted right to ownership in 1. Who may apply (PRD, Sec 14)
land and charged with the a. Those who by themselves
conservation of such patrimony. or through their
Thus all lands not otherwise predecessors in interest
appearing to be clearly within private have been in continuous,
open, notorious and  In a reversion suit, the
exclusive possession & state must show that
occupation of alienable the land was
lands of public domain inalienable at the
from June 12, 1945 or time it was decreed
earlier. to the defendant
 Except for those (Republic v. Cabrera,
already covered by 2017. CAGUIOA)
existing titles, b. Those who have acquired
Boracay was ownership of private land
unclassified land of by prescription (10-30
the public domain. years under NCC 1134
Hence pursuant to and 1137).
P.D 705, Boracay was  Acquisitive
considered as forest prescription only
land. Hence even if applies to patrimonial
the resort owners property of the state,
could tack their not to lands of public
ownership back to domain. The
June 12, 1945, that declaration that the
would not confer title land is alienable and
since public forest disposable did not
land cannot be convert it into
alienated or disposed patrimonial property.
of. (Secretary of There must be a
DENR v. Yap, 2008) declaration that the
land is no longer
 Possession must be needed for public use,
actual. Tax public service or the
declarations alone development of the
which are not coupled national wealth. And
with proof of actual in such a case, it is
possession are only the possession
insufficient. after the declaration
(Republic v. East which would be
Silverware Realty, counted for purposes
2012) of acquisitive
prescription. (Heirs
of Malabanan v.
 That land is alienable Republic, 2009)
and disposable may
be the subject of c. Those who have acquired
judicial admission. ownership of private
(Heirs of Delfin v. lands or abandoned river
NHA, 2016) beds by right of accession
 or accretion under least 60% of the capital
existing laws. stock belongs wholly to
Filipino Citizens and
d. Those who have acquired which is organized and
ownership of land in any constituted under
other manner provided by Philippines Law. (PLA,
law. Sec 33)
 Save in cases of hereditary o Only private lands
succession, no private lands shall be may be acquired
transferred except to individuals or and not alienable
corporations or associations qualified & disposable
to acquire or hold lands of the public public lands
domain (Art. XII, Sec 7) o A corporation
o The constitutional prohibition may be a
only applies to acquisition of transferee of a
land. The improvements on land from an
land such as a house are not individual who
covered and hence may be has possessed it
donated in favor of an alien for the required
(Beumer v. Amores, 2012) period under the
o Remedy for land illegally Public Land Act
transferred to an alien shall or since June 12,
be an action for reversion 1945 (Director of
under Rule 91, Sec 5 and Lands v. IAC,
Sec. 101 of the PLA. Only 1986)
the government , through the c. Aliens by hereditary
OSG has the personality to succession (Art. XII, Sec
file the case challenging the 8)
capacity of an alien to acquire o Hereditary
or own lands (Balais- succession refers
Mabanag v. Register of to succession by
Deeds, 2010) operation of law
and not to
 Notwithstanding Sec. 7, a natural testamentary
born citizen of the Philippines who succession
has lost his Philippine Citizenship (Ramirez v.
may be the transferee of private Ramirez, 1982)
lands subject to the limitations d. Former natural-born
provided by law (Art XII, Sec 8) Filipinos per the limits
under Sec 10. of the
 The following may be transferees of Foreign Investments Act
private lands: o Urban Land:
a. Filipino Citizens (Art XII, 5000sqm
Sec 3) o Rural Land: 3
b. Private corporations or Hectares
associations wherein at 2. Decree of Registration
  After the judgment becomes rights may be prejudiced.
final and executory, the (PRD, Sec 32)
court shall forthwith issue  Upon the expiration of said
an order to the LRA to period of 1 year, the decree
issue/enter a decree of of registration and the
registration and the original certificate of title issued shall
certificate of title become incontrovertible,
 The LRA will send the meaning the decree can no
decree of registration and longer be reopened or
OCT to the RD who will then reviewed
send a notice to the o Execution pending
registered owner that he may appeal not applicable
obtain delivery of the to land registration
owner’s duplicate certificate proceeding and the
of title upon payment of the title issued
proper fees. The owner’s pursuant thereto is
original certificate of title void (Top
remains with the RD Management
 Nothing in the law which Programs v. Fajardo,
limits the time in which the 2011)
court may order the issuance
of the decree in land o Action for
registration. Rule 39, Sec 6 is Reconveyance
not applicable (Republic v. o Ground: Property
Yap, 2018) acquired through
 Court should issue order for fraud or by mistake.
decree of registration even if The acquirer is
lot was purportedly registered deemed a trustee for
per LRA records but no the benefit of the
records being cadastral case person from whom
no. or decision or decree of the property came.
registration. Applicant should
not be held hostage by Prescriptive period :
scarcity of records (Republic 10 years from the
v. Heirs of Sta. Ana , 2021) issuance of a Torrens
Title in name of the
3. Review of Decree of Registration acquirer. However, it
 Filed with the RTC where is imprescriptible if
land is situated on the ground plaintiff is in
of actual (extrinsic)fraud possession.
within one year from the date
of the entry of decree of Jurisdiction:
registration and provided no RTC/MTC. It is a real
innocent purchaser for action
value has acquired the land
or an interest therein whose
 o Action for deed of assignment of rights
reconveyance does over registered real property
not seek to reopen where the assignor was not
proceedings and set the registered owner (Bliss
aside the decree of Development Corp v. Diaz ,
registration but only 2015)
purports to show that  Mortgagees who are engaged
the person who in the real estate or financing
secured the business cannot simply rely
registration of the upon a paper examination of
property in the title (Adriano v.
controversy is not the Pangilinan, 2002)
real owner thereof E. Subsequent Registration
(Sps. Lopez v. Sps. 1. Voluntary dealings; general
Lopez, 2009) provisions
D. Certificate of Title  PRD, Sec 51 – The act of
 Mirror Principle (PRD, Sec registration shall be the
44) – Every registered operative act to convey or
owner receiving a affect land insofar as third
certificate of title in persons are concerned…..
pursuance of a decree of o City’s unregistered
registration and every claim based on
subsequent purchaser of donation cannot give
registered land taking a a better right of
certificate of title for value possession as against
and in good faith, shall hold the registered owner
the same free from all (Mariano v. City of
encumbrances except those Naga, 2018)
noted in the certificate and o Registered levy on
any of the following: execution prevails
o Legal Liens over a prior
o Real Estate Taxes unregistered sale
(levied and assessed (Suntay v. Keyser
within 2 years Mercantile, 2014)
immediately o An action for
preceding the annulment of REM is
acquisition) incapable of
o Public/ Private pecuniary estimation
Highway/ Way even if the realty had
recognized by law been foreclosed if the
o Irrigation action was filed
(Government Canal) before the registration
o Agrarian Reform of the certificate of
Liens sale(First Sarmiento
 Mirror principle is not Holdings v. PBCom,
applicable to an assignee in a 2019).
 PRD, Sec 52. – Every
conveyance, mortgage, lease,
attachment, order , judgment ,
instrument or entry affecting
registered land shall, if
registered, filed or entered in
the office of the Register of
Deeds for the province or the
city where the land to which
it relates lies, be constructive
notice to all persons from the
time of such registering,
filing or entering.
o Constructive notice
rule does not apply in
reckoning the 6 year
prescriptive period for
Assurance Fund
Cases. Period is
reckoned from actual
discovery of fraud by
the owner (Manuel v.
RD, 2018)
 PRD, Sec 56 – The deed is
considered registered upon
entry in the primary entry
book upon the payment of
entry free
o Entry of a document
in the primary entry
book of the RD is
sufficient registration
(Caviles v Bautista,
1999)
 “As is, where is” clause in a
deed of sale does not place
the buyer in bad faith for the
clause only refers to physical
condition, not the legal
situation of the land
(Casimiro Development
Corp. v. Mateo, 2011)
 PRD, Sec 53 – General
Rule : A forged certificate of
title cannot be the root of a
valid title. “After the entry
of the of the decree of
registration, any
subsequent registration
procured by the
presentation of a forged
duplicate certificate of title
or a forged deed or
instrument shall be void”
o Exception : The SC
has held that a forged
or fraudulently
obtained deed may be
the root of a valid title
if an innocent
purchaser for value,
relying upon the
forger’s apparently
valid title, had
purchased the land
covered by the same
and the loss or fraud
was occasioned by the
true owner’s
negligence or act of
confidence (Chain of
Title Doctrine)
o Requisites :
1. Negligence on the
part of the owner or
act of confidence on
the part of the owner
which made the fraud
possible.
2. Certificate of title
in the name of the
forger or some other
person chose by the
forger.
3. The one who
acquires title from the
forger is an innocent
purchaser for value
 4. The purchaser must
register the deed in a. Adverse claim
his favor in good  PRD, Sec. 70 - Whoever
faith. claims any part or interest
o Buyers cannot be in registered land adverse
considered in good to the registered owner,
faith if they merely arising subsequent to the date
relied upon a of the original registration,
photocopy of the may, if no other provision is
forger’s title in made in this Decree for
buying the property. registering the same
A mere photocopy (adverse claim), make a
should have made statement in writing setting
them suspicious that forth fully his alleged right or
there was some flaw interest, and how or under
in the forger’s title whom acquired, a reference
because he was not in to the number of the
possession of the certificate of title of the
original copy (Sps. registered owner, the name of
Peralta v. Abalon, the registered owner, and a
2014) description of the land in
o Purchasers cannot be which the right or interest is
claimed.
considered as
innocent purchaser for The statement shall be signed
value if they did not and sworn to, and shall state
register the deed of the adverse claimant's
sale in their favor residence, and a place at
(Mahilum v Ilano, which all notices may be
2015) served upon him. This
o The Chain of Title statement shall be entitled to
Doctrine will not registration as an adverse
apply if the owner claim on the certificate of
still holds a valid and title. The adverse claim shall
existing certificate of be effective for a period of
title over the subject thirty days from the date of
realty (Torres v. CA, registration. After the lapse of
1990) said period, the annotation of
2. Involuntary dealings adverse claim may be
 Transactions or dealings canceled upon filing of a
affecting the land that do not verified petition therefor by
require the consent of the the party in interest:
registered owner or that can Provided, however, that
be effected even against his after cancellation, no
consent (E.g. Attachment, second adverse claim based
levy on execution, adverse on the same ground shall be
claim, lis pendens)
registered by the same
claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty
days aforesaid, any party in
interest may file a petition
in the Court of First
Instance where the land is
situated for the cancellation
of the adverse claim, and
the court shall grant a
speedy hearing upon the
question of the validity of
such adverse claim, and
shall render judgment as may
be just and equitable. If the
adverse claim is adjudged to
be invalid, the registration
thereof shall be ordered
canceled. If, in any case, the
court, after notice and
hearing, shall find that the
adverse claim thus registered
was frivolous, it may fine the
claimant in an amount not
less than one thousand pesos
nor more than five thousand
pesos, in its discretion.
Before the lapse of thirty
days, the claimant may
withdraw his adverse claim
by filing with the Register of
Deeds a sworn petition to that
effect.
o Purpose of adverse
claim is so that it will
not pass into the
hands of an innocent
purchaser for value
o A notice of adverse
claim subsists even
after the lapse of the
30-day period if not
yet cancelled. A buyer
who purchases land
on which there is a
subsisting adverse
claim is in bad faith
o There should be a
hearing with notice to
the adverse claimant
before the adverse
claim is cancelled,
even if the 30-day
period had already
expired (Diaz-Duarte
v. Ong)
o An adverse claim may
only be cancelled by a
court or by the
claimant himself. A
person who buys a
property containing
an adverse claim
cancelled by a person
other than the
claimant is not an
innocent purchaser
value (Mendoza v.
Garana ,2015)
o Adverse claim based
on prescription/
adverse possession
cannot be registered
because registered
title is not subject to
prescription/ adverse
possession (Estrada
v.RD)
o Adverse claim must
be based on a valid
real right. Waiver of
future inheritance is
void and cannot be
the basis of an
adverse claim (Ferrer
v. Sps Diaz, 2010)
o A claim based on a
future right does not
ripen into an adverse
claim (Cathay Metal
Corp v. Laguna West
 Multi-Purpose Coop,
2014)
o Adverse claim not
proper to register a
contract based on a
contract to sell
(Logarta v.
Managhis, 2016) The
CTS could be
registered under Sec.
54 of the PRD
b. Notice of lis pendens
 PRD, Sec. 76 - No action to
recover possession of real
estate, or to quiet title thereto,
or to remove clouds upon the
title thereof, or for partition,
or other proceedings of any
kind in court directly
affecting the title to land or
the use or occupation thereof
or the buildings thereon, and
no judgment, and no
proceeding to vacate or
reverse any judgment, shall
have any effect upon
registered land as against
persons other than the
parties thereto, unless a
memorandum or notice
stating the institution of such
action or proceeding and the
court wherein the same is
pending, as well as the date
of the institution thereof,
together with a reference to
the number of the certificate
of title, and an adequate
description of the land
affected and the registered
owner thereof, shall have
been filed and registered.
o It is a real action
o Filing of a case and
registration of notice
of lis pendens does
not invalidate a prior
registration of an an
adverse claim over the
subject land
(Valderama vs.
Arguelles, 2018)
o A transferee pendente
lite of registered land,
whose title bears
notice of a pending
litigation involving
his transferor’s title to
the said land is bound
by the outcome of the
litigation even if he is
not impleaded (De la
Merced v. GSIS,
2011)
o A mortgagee is not in
good faith where the
mortgage was
executed after the trial
court had ordered the
cancellation of the
notice of lis pendens
but before
registration of the
order of cancellation
(Cunanan v. Jumping
Jap Trading, (2009))
F. Non-registrable properties
 Registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.
o Registration under the
Torrens System, by itself
cannot convert public lands
into private lands. (Chavez v.
CA, 2003)
 Non-Registrable Property
1. Mineral Lands
2. Forest Lands
3. National Parks
4. Reservations for public and
semi-public purposes
5. Military and Naval does not have
Reservations retroactive effect and
 Sale of a portion of does not apply to the
the Fort Bonifacio Talayan Village
Military Reservation which was developed
to the NOVAI is void. in the 1950s
The title issued to the (Homeowners Assoc.
NOVAI is similarly of Talayan Village v.
void. Registration J.M Tuason & CO.,
under the Torrens 2015)
System does not by  The HLURB has
itself, vest title as it is jurisdiction over an
not a mode of action by the
acquiring ownership homeowners
(Navy Officers association to nullify
Village Assoc v. the mortgage by
Republic, 2015) developer to the bank
of a subdivision open
 Libingan ng mga space (BDO v. Sunny-
Bayani is a land of the Side Heights
public domain Homeowners’ Assoc,
devoted for national 2016) It has now been
military shrine transferred to the
purposes. Under the regional adjudicator
RAC, the president of the Human
has the power to Settlements
reserve for specific Adjudication
public uses and Commission. (R.A
purposes, lands of the 11201, Sec 16)
public domain 12. Watershed areas
(Ocampo v. Enriquez,
2016)  A certificate of title covering
6. Mangrove Swamps inalienable lands of public domain
7. Rivers like forest or timber or mineral lands
8. Lakes is void and can be cancelled even in
9. Creeks the hands of an innocent purchaser
10. Foreshores for value (Heirs of Venturanza v.
11. Open Spaces in subdivisions Republic, 2007)
 They are properties of
the public domain and G. Dealings with unregistered lands
cannot be the subject  Voluntary/involuntary dealings over
of commerce registered lands may also be
pursuant to PD. 1216 registered pursuant to PRD, Sec 113.
(Anonuevo v. CA) The dealings are entered in the
 PD 1216 effective in primary entry book and the
October 14, 1977 registration book and are binding
 upon such third persons upon such
registration.
 Recording under Act No. 3344 or
Sec 113 of PRD is binding upon
third persons but shall be without
prejudice to a party with a better
right. This means a party who has
already acquired ownership or title.
H. Assurance Fund
1. Action of compensation from
funds
o No breach of trust (Express
or implied)
o Deprivation of interest is due
to fraud or the operation of
the Torrens System
o No other remedy
o Filed within 6 years from
accrual of right of action.
o Jurisdiction and Venue :
RTC/MTC depending on the
amount of the claim. It is a
personal action
o Brought against the RD and
the National Treasurer.
o In order for an action to lie
against the assurance fund,
the claimant must have been
deprived of the land or
interest therein by virtue of
bringing the land under the
operation of the Torrens
System or arising after the
original registration of the
land. Here, Y never acquired
the land or any interest
therein since the one who
sold the land to him was not
an owner but an impostor
(Treasurer of the Philippines
v. CA)
2. Limitation of Action
I. Cadastral System of Registration
(Act No. 2259 as amended)
J. Registration through
administrative proceedings (C.A
141, as amended)
K. Reconstitution of titles
 If original certificate on file with the
RD is lost, then the remedy is
reconstitution. The governing laws
are R.A 26 as amended and PRD,
Sec 110. Reconstitution may either
be judicial or administrative.
 Actual and personal notice to actual
owners and possessors of land in a
petition for reconstitution is
indispensable to vest jurisdiction on
the court (Republic v. Manansala,
2021. CAGUIOA)
 Required quantum of evidence is
clear and convincing evidence
(Manansala supra)
 Administrative reconstitution may
be availed only in case of substantial
loss or destruction of land titles due
to fire, , flood or other force majeure
as determined by the LRA
Administrator
o The number of certificate
titles lost or damaged should
be at least 10% of the total
number in the RD”s
possession and in no case
shall the number of
certificates lost or damaged
be less than 500
o Administratively
reconstituted titles shall be
subject to a two-year period
in favor of persons whose
interests were annotated on
the OCT but not carried over
to the reconstituted title.