You are on page 1of 2


A. AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE RULE: No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or a memorandum therein and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds. EXCEPTION: By order of the proper REGIONAL TRIAL COURT petition may be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered. 1) WHO MAY FILE a. registered owner b. other person having an interest in the registered property c. in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority 2) GROUNDS FOR PETITION a. when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased b. when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate c. when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate d. when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed e. when the registered owner has been married or, registered as married, the marriage has terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected f. when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within 3 years after its dissolution g. when there is a reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.

3) EXTENT AND LIMITATIONS OF COURTS AUTHORITY AUTHORITY OF COURTS: Regional Trial Courts no longer have limited jurisdiction in original land registration cases. Under the amended PD 1529, the court is now authorized to hear and decide not only non-controversial cases (where there was unanimity among parties or none of them raised any adverse claim or serious objection), but even the contentious and substantial issues which were beyond its competence before. LIMITATIONS OF COURT: a. it has no authority or jurisdiction to reopen the judgment or decree of registration; b. it has no authority or jurisdiction to impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs or assigns, without his or their written consent. AFTER DUE HEARING, THE COURT MAY ONLY: a. order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate b. order the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate c. grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper. B. SURRENDER OF WITHHELD DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE 1) WHO MAY FILE AND WHERE TO FILE any party in interest Regional Trial Court 2) GROUNDS FOR PETITION a. where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any INVOLUNTARY INSTRUMENT (such attachment or sale on execution) which divests the title of the registered owner against his consent b. where a VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENT (such as conveyances, mortgage, or lease) cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owners duplicate certificate of title, and c. where the owners duplicate certificate is not presented for

amendment or alteration pursuant to a court order 3) ACTIONS BY THE COURT a. order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender b. order the annulment of the owners duplicate certificate and the issuance of a new certificate in lieu thereof if the person withholding the same, is not amenable to the courts processes, or if for any reason said owners duplicate certificate cannot be surrendered. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum for the annulment of the outstanding duplicate. 4) REMEDY BY MOTION a party may, by motion, also ask the RTC to compel the holder of the duplicate certificate of title to surrender the same to the Register of Deeds concerned for the registration of the deed of sale subject of the principal action for specific performance as a necessary incident to the main case. THIS DOES NOT APPLY: where the principal action involved had been finally terminated and already executed by levy and sold on execution. Proper remedy would be to file a petition in court to compel the surrender of the duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds. C. REPLACEMENT OF LOST CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (in case of loss, destruction, or theft) 1) WHO MAY FILE AND WHERE TO FILE registered owner or party in interest Regional Trial Court of the province/city where the land lies 2) PROCESS OF REPLACEMENT a. NOTICE TO REGISTER OF DEEDS: due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner (or someone in his behalf) to the RD of the province/city where the land lies soon as loss/theft is discovered. b. SWORN STATEMENT: if a duplicate certificate is lost/destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for entry of a new certificate to him or for registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss/destruction may be filed by the

registered owner or other person in interest and registered. c. NOTICE OF PETITION: must be sent to all persons interested in the property (as shown by encumbrances annotated in the original certificate on file with the Registry of Deeds) it is the RD who should request for representation by the Solicitor General c. UPON PETITION AND AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING: the court may direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate (which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree) ONLY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN THE PETITION: a. whether or not the original owners duplicate copy had indeed been lost, and b. whether or not the petitioner seeking the issuance of a new owners duplicate title is the registered owner or other person in interest 3) WHERE THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SOUGHT TO BE REPLACED WAS NOT IN FACT LOST/DESTROYED there is no necessity to file similar petition as above (such would be null and void, and the newly issued duplicate would be null and void as well)