You are on page 1of 66

AN UPDATE ON THE LAW

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

ATTY LINDA L. MALENAB-HORNILLA
Undersecretary, Department of Justice

ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

• Private lands may be brought under the
operation of the Torrens System Land
Registration thru: (1) ordinary or voluntary
land registration proceedings under Act No.
496 and Sections 14 to 33 of P. D. No. 1529,
and under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141, as
amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
Act, (2) compulsory proceedings under Act
No. 2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act
of 1913, and (3) Sections 35 to 38 of P. D. No.
1529. (cadastral)

ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

• Public lands granted by way of homestead,
sales or free patent under the Public Land Act
are likewise brought under the Torrens System
upon registration of the patent and issuance of
the corresponding certificate of title by the
Register of Deeds. Registration of such lands
under the Torrens System is automatic and
compulsory. The same could be said of an
emancipation patent issued by the Department
of Agrarian Reform when such patent covers an
unregistered private agricultural land devoted to
rice and corn, by virtue of P. D. No. 266.

formation of lands in non navigable rivers and reclamation. avulsion. only those who claim to own the land in fee simple may apply. titulo de compra (title by purchase during the Spanish Colonial Period. titulo de concession especial (special grant). abandonment of river bed.. No. or thru the different forms of accession under the Civil Code and special laws. . titulo de composicion con el estado (adjustment title).Who applies? • In an ordinary land registration proceedings under Act 496 and Sections 14-33. like accretion. i. D.e. P. those who acquired ownership of the land by titulo real (royal grant). 1529.

1976 • Spanish titles are now hard to find and if there is any it would probably be of doubtful genuineness or validity. . 892 as February 16. No. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM • the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings is proscribed by P. D.

Nevertheless the Supreme Court has also consistently held that they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. • The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that they are not conclusive evidence of ownership. Ramos. tax declaration and tax realty receipts. if not all.ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM • Most. ordinary applications for land registration is based on possession and occupation. Tax declaration and realty tax receipts are not evidence of a grant of land from the State. 2006)] . [Ramos-Balallo vs. and nothing more. 470 SCRA 533 (January 23.

invoke Section 48(b) of C. IMPERFECT/INCOMPLETE TITLE • The title to the land is imperfect or incomplete. otherwise known as the Public Land Act. but whose title have not been perfected or completed. occupying the lands of the public domain or claiming to own such lands or an interest therein. no. A. which provides: • citizens of the Philippines. may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title under the Land Registration Act . as amended. 141.

Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title • This is referred to as judicial confirmation • or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title to public agricultural lands under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. . • it requires the concurrence of the following elements. to wit.

This is in keeping with the provision of Section 2. Lapena. However. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which limits the acquisition and enjoyment of our natural resources to Filipino citizens. the Supreme Court held that there is nothing to prevent a foreign national from applying for judicial confirmation of the imperfect title to a tract of land that he purchased while he was still a Filipino from one who had been in possession and occupation of the land for the period and to the manner prescribed by Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. for then the land has ceased to be public land. . Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title • The applicant must be a Filipino citizen. in Director of Lands vs.

. openly continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period is converted to private property by mere lapse or completion of said period. ipso jure.Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title • a private corporation may file an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act for the reason that alienable and disposable public land held by a possessor. personally or through his predecessor-in-interest.

146 SCRA 509. & IAC. Acme Plywood and Veneer Corp.Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title • The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land but only confirm such a conversion already affected by operation of law from the moment the required period of possession became complete. [Director of Lands vs. .

1945. exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12. .Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title • PERIOD AND CHARACTER OF POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION – The applicant has been in open. continuous.

468 SCRA 709. 476 SCRA 265 (November 25. • The land has been classified as alienable and disposable. Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title • The area applied for shall not exceed 144 hectares. 474 SCRA 700 (November 11. Enciso. • The application must be filed not later than December 31. 2020. Estonilo. 2005)] . Republic vs. 2005). [See also Republic vs. 2005). Carlos vs. Republic. (August 31.

beyond the jurisdiction of the Land Management Bureau. Heirs of Filomena Gumela. The free patent issued by the DENR and the certificate of the title issued by the Register of Deeds are null and void. 2006). 5 SCRA 240] . CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS • THE TITLE OF OWNERSHIP ON THE LAND IS VESTED UPON THE OWNER UPON EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OR ADJUDICATION BY THE CADASTRAL COURT • “The land had become a registered property which could not be acquired by adverse possession and. citing De la Merced vs. 468 SCRA 441 (March 31. to subject it to a free patent. therefore. CA.” [Calimpong vs.

but from the fact that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. 5 SCRA 240] . CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS • The President of the Philippines or his alter ego. has no authority to grant a free patent for land that has ceased to be a public land and has passed to private ownership. Heirs of Filomena Gumela.” [Calimpong vs. The nullity arises not from the fraud or deceit. citing De la Merced vs. and a title so issued is null and void. 468 SCRA 441 (March 31. the Director of Lands. 2006). CA.

REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS 1. PETITION TO REVIEW OR REOPEN A DECREE OF REGISTRATION • Section 38 of Act 496 recognizes the right of a person deprived of land to institute an action to reopen or revise the decree of registration obtained by actual fraud.” .

• Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect on public interests and public or private confidence. even though the act is not done with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons . • Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS Fraud is two kinds: actual or constructive.

of land which have been fraudulently granted to private individuals. REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS • Prescription does not run against the State and the latter may still bring an action. 2006)] . Guerrero.” [Republic vs. for the reversion of the land to the public domain. even after the lapse of one year. 485 SCRA 424 (March 28.

2006)] . [Naval vs. 483 SCRA 102 (February 22. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE . What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name. REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS 2. a decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. to its rightful or legal owner.In action for reconveyance. CA. or to one who has a better right.

472 SCRA 274 (October 11. 483 SCRA 102 (February 22. [Portes. Sr. 468 SCRA 343 9august 30. 2005)] . 2006). Registration alone without good faith is not sufficient. vs. REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS • An action for reconveyance does not prescribed when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed.” [Naval vs. Remoto. CA. Good faith must concur with registration for such prior right to be enforceable. Arcala. see also Cuizon vs. 2005)] • The fraudulent registration of a parcel holds the person in whose name the land is registered as a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

are incontrovertible. CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE • “T. on their face. 2006)] . indefeasible and conclusive against the petitioners and the whole world. M-19968 and T. Thus. No. 19973.C. the unregistered deed of sale and the subdivision contract upon which petitioners rely. To hold otherwise is to defeat the primary object of the Torrens System which is to make the Torrens title indefeasible and valid against the whole world.T. cannot prevail over the certificate of title in the name of Cruz. being genuine and valid.C.” [Santos vs. No. Cruz. 484 SCRA 66 (March 3.T. PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE • A title emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud and misrepresentation does not become indefeasible. [Heirs of Carlos Alcaraz vs. Republic 464 SCRA 280 (July 28. 2005)] . precisely because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect whatsoever.

466 SCRA 90 (August 9. and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary. vs. 2005)] . Chuatoco-Ching. PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY. the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight. CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE • If a property covered by a Torrens title is involved. Jr. the holder thereof should be considered the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action.” [Pacioles.

IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF TORRENS
TITLE

• It is not disputed that at the core of this
controversy is a parcel of land registered under
the Torrens system. In a long line of cases, we
have consistently ruled that lands covered by a
title cannot be acquired by prescription or by
adverse possession. So it is that in Natalia
Realty Corp. vs. Vallez, et al., we held that a
claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless
when the land involved is a registered land
because of Article 1126 of the Civil Code and
Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529. [Ragudo vs.
Fabella Estate tenants Association, Inc., 466
SCRA 136(August 9, 2005)]

PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE

• But a party's alleged possession of a
transfer certificate of title and actual
possession of subject land, although
strong proof of ownership, are not
necessarily conclusive where the assertion
of the proprietary rights is founded on a
dubious claim of ownership.” [Estate of
Salvador Serra vs. Heirs of Primitivo
Hernaez, 466 SRCA 120 (August 9, 2005);
see also Bejoc vs. Cabreros, 464 SCRA 78
(July 22, 2005)]

A VOID TITLE MAYBE THE SOURCE OF A VALID
TITLE IN THE HANDS OF AN INNOCENT

PURCHASER FOR VALUE

• If the evidence show that the free patent and
O.C.T. issued to petitioners' predecessors-in-
interest is valid and/or Lot No. 89 is not inside
T.C.T. No. 257152, then judgment should be
rendered in favor of petitioners; and whether the
latter acted in good faith or bad faith, will no
longer be a decisive issue in the case. On the
other hand, if the title of petitioners'
predecessors-in -interest is declared void, the
defense of good faith may still be available to
petitioners' who claim to be purchasers in good
faith and for value.” [Tan vs. Dela Vega, 484
SCRA 538 (March 10, 2006)]

i. or sitting in the “mirador a su casa” to avoid the possibility of losing his hand. the owner may rest secure. the issue on the validity of title.” . whether or not it was fraudulently issued can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.e. without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court. A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK • It is well settled that the Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked.. It has been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered.

” [Fil-estate Management.” • “A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined. Inc. Supra] . Thus. it is too late for the respondents to question petitioners’ titles considering that the certificates of title issued to the latter have become incontrovertible after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of registration.A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK • “Respondents’ application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack against petitioners’ title. but also upon matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings. not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.

Batuyong. POSSESSION OF TITLED PROPERTY ADVERSE TO REGISTERD OWNER IS NECESSARILY TAINTED WITH BAD FAITH • Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. when the verification survey report came to the petitioners’ knowledge. It is doctrinal in land registration law that possession of titled property adverse to the registered owner is necessarily tainted with bad faith [Cajayon vs. their good faith ceased. 482 SCRA 461 (February 16. 2006)] . In the instant case. The survey report is a profession of encroachment of respondents’ titled property.

CONTINUING. Branch 255. 482 SCRA 578(February 17. 2006)] . erred on ruling that the Regional Trial Court. M-228 on the ground that the land subject to respondents’ application for registration was already registered in the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas City. The Court of Appeals. but also on all petitions filed after original registration of title. has no jurisdiction over LRC Case No. Las Pinas City. not only on the application for original registration of title to land.” [Fil- Estate Management. SPECIAL AND LIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COURT OVER PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE • The Regional Trial Court has the authority to act. Inc. vs. therefore. Trono.

mineral lands and national parks. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural. FOREST LAND NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE LANDS. all lands of the public domain belong to State. forest or timber. and those lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the state.” . REGALIAN DOCTRINE. HOMESTEAD • Under the Regalian Doctrine. Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

remains to be the general law governing the classification and disposition of alienable lands of the public domain It enumerates the different modes of acquisition of these lands and prescribes the terms and conditions to enable private persons to perfect their title to them. . REGALIAN DOCTRINE. HOMESTEAD • C. A. FOREST LAND NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE LANDS.D. 1073 (1977). 141 (1936) or the Public Land Act. as amended by P. No.

Under the Public Land Act. Arcala. Ramos. a homestead patent is one issued to any citizen of this country. the applicant must show that he has resided continuously for at least one (1) year in the municipality where the land is situated and must have cultivated at least one- fifth of the land applied for. and who is not the owner of more than 24 hectares of land in the country. 18 years of age or head of family. Supra] . [Portes Sr. To be qualified. vs.” [Ramos-Balallo vs. 479 SCRA 533 (January 23. 2006)] • A homestead patent once registered under the Land Registration Act becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title. HOMESTEAD • A homestead patent is one of the modes to acquire title to public lands suitable for agricultural purposes.

The rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. are not capable of private appropriation. FOREST LAND • Public forest lands or forest reserves. do not necessarily refer to a large tract of wooded land or an expense covered by dense growth of trees or underbrush. mineral lands and national parks”.” (Republic vs. 2006) . 479 SCRA 585 (January 24. Naguiat. in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution classifying lands of the public domain into “agricultural. forest or timber. unless declassified and released by positive act of the Government so that they may form part of the disposable lands of the public domain.” Forests.

although corners 3 and 4 of lot 2833 have been shown to adjoin the sea. Lensico. In the present case. In other words. 466 SCRA 361 (August 9. 2005)] . the land left dry by the flux and re-flux of the tide. FORESHORE LAND • Foreshore land has been defined as that which lies between the high and low watermarks. it is that strip of land between high and low water. [Republic vs. they have not been proven to be covered by water during high tide. Hence. and that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide. the property cannot be considered foreshore land.

2006) . for no one is in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. nevertheless. 479 SCRA 533 (Jan. PROBATIVE VALUE OF A TAX DECLARATION • Time and again. (Ramos-Balallo vs. 23. they are good indicia of possession in the context of an owner. Ramos. we have held that although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership.

as in the instant case. where the person seeking relief is in the possession of the disputed property. Quieting of Title • The settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is imprescriptible.” . and that the undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of the Court of Equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title. A person in actual possession of a piece of land under claim of ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking any step to vindicate his right.

Respondent’s payment of taxes alone. What stands out is their overwhelming passivity by allowing petitioners to exercise acts of ownership and to enjoy the fruits of the litigated lot for 32 years without any interference. Payment of taxes • Only a positive and categorical assertion of their supposed rights against petitioners would rule out the application of laches.” (Rumarate vs. It means taking the initiative by instituting means to wrest possession. Hernandez. 2006]) . could hardly be considered as an exercise of ownership. 487 SCRA 317 [April 18. without possession.

2006)] .” (Buduhan vs. Effective Possession • The statement of an immediate neighbor of a disputed property as to who he observed was in effective possession of the same commands great weight and respect. 22. Pakurao. 483 SCRA 116 (Feb.

JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE • Jurisprudence dictates that the jurisdictional requirements must be complied with before the court can act on the petition and grant the reconstitution of title prayed for.” • The petitioner to prove compliance with the following requirements: .

and posted in the main entrance of the provincial building and the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is located at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing . NOTICE OF PETITION • Publication • The notice of petition be published at the expense of the petitioner twice in successive issues in the Official Gazette.

. and boundaries of the property ad the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or objection to the petition. the location. if known. area. the name of the registered owner.Jurisdictional Requirements • The notice must state the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title. the name of the occupants and persons in possession of the property. the owner of adjoining properties and all other interested parties.

the name of the registered owner. the name of the occupants and persons in possession of the property. if known.Jurisdictional Requirements • The notice must state the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title. the location. . the owner of adjoining properties and all other interested parties. and boundaries of the property ad the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or objection to the petition. area.

to every person named (i. the owner of adjoining properties and al other interested parties whose address is known.Jurisdictional Requirements • A copy of the notice must also be sent. at the expense of the petitioner. by registered mail or otherwise.e. the occupants or persons in possession of the property. at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. .

• The non-observance of the requirement invalidates the reconstitution proceedings in the trial court. .Jurisdictional Requirements • At the hearing. posting and service of notice as directed by the court. the petitioner must submit proof of publication.

Jurisdictional Requirements • The purposes of the stringent and mandatory character of the legal requirements of publication. 2006)] . posting and mailing are to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land ownership claim. Substantial compliance with the jurisdictional requirements is not enough. 435 SCRA 308 (Mar 24.” [Gov’t of the Phil. Vs. Aballe. to apprise all interested parties of the existence of such action and give them enough time to intervene in the proceeding.

Judicial Reconstitution • In case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from source enumerated in Section 2 (f). 2005)] .” [Cabello vs. or with a certified copy of the description taken from the prior certificate of title covering the same property. (any other doc) the petition shall be accompanied by a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the General Land Registration Office. Republic. 467 SCRA 330 (Aug. 18.

D. unless an innocent purchaser for value had intervened.T.A. 1529 (Section 109). 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost original certificate on file with the Register of Deeds.C. R. • “No valid transfer certificate of title can issue from a void T. No.PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPLACEMENT OF A LOST OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AND RECONSTITUTION OF LOST ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ON FILE WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS • The applicable law in applying for a replacement of and owner’s duplicate certificate of title is P. . the court that rendered the decision has no jurisdiction.” • “When the reconstituted certificate is void..

478 SCRA 420 (Dec. 16.” [Eastworld Motor Industries Corp. vs.” • “The remedy to nullify an order granting reconstitution is a petition for annulment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. 2005)] .JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION • “As a rule.. Skunac Corp. the annotation of an affidavit of loss on a reconstituted certificate might be defective and inferior to an already existing certificate of title.

.the only issues to be resolved In a petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title in replacement of a lost one • Whether o not the original owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title had indeed been lost. • Whether the petitioner seeking the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title is the registered owner or another person-in-interest.

2005)] . CA. The fact that the contracts to buy and sell are unregistered and the properties in question are still in the name of the respondent underline the fact that the sales are not absolute. 19. REGISTRATION IS THE OPERATIVE ACT THAT AFFECTS AND CONVEYS THE LAND INSOFAR AS THIRD PERSONS ARE CONCERNED • “Respondents contention that the unregistered buyer’s rights over the property is superior to that of the judgment obligor has not basis. 478 SCRA 618 (Dec. UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM. vs. [DSM Construction and Development Corp.

and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title is decreed. 479 SCRA 99. being in the nature of an original complaint for cancellation of transfer certificate of title. CA.” [Sarmiento vs. 2005)] .” A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint. The third party complaint for the cancellation of transfer certificate of title. IMMUNITY OF A TORRENS TITLE FROM COLLATERAL ATTACK • An action is deemed as an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title. (Sept. 16. it therefore constitutes a direct attack of such TCT.

16.” [Sarmiento vs. it therefore constitutes a direct attack of such TCT. 2005)] .” • “A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint. The third party complaint for the cancellation of transfer certificate of title. 479 SCRA 99. CA. being in the nature of an original complaint for cancellation of transfer certificate of title. and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title is decreed. (Sept. IMMUNITY OF A TORRENS TITLE FROM COLLATERAL ATTACK • An action is deemed as an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title.

9. Planters Development Bank vs. 477 SCRA 227. MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM • When dealing with land that is registered and titled. Reed. buyers are not required by law to inquire further than what the Torrens certificate indicates on its face. (Dec. 2005). • The presence of anything that excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the buyer to look beyond the vendor’s certificate and investigate the title appearing on the face of that certificate. [Domingo vs. 9. Garcia. 477 SCRA 185 (Dec. 2005)] .

2005)] . Banks are required to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in dealing even with registered properties for their business is affected with public interest. (Keppel Bank Philippines. vs. MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM • However. Inc. Adao. 19. 473 SCRA 372 (Oct. this rule does not apply to banks.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE • The LRA properly ruled that the reconstitution officer should have confined himself to the owner's duplicate certificate of title prior to the reconstitution. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 clearly provides: Section 3: Transfer certificates of titles shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available in the following order (a) the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title." .

there is no need for the reconstituting officer to require the submission of the plan." . it is the intent of the law to give more weight and preference to the owner's duplicate certificate of title over the other enumerated sources.ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE • Since respondents' source of reconstitution is the owner's duplicate certificate of title. much less deny the petition on the ground that the submitted plan appears to be spurious. By enumerating the hierarchy of sources to be used for the reconstitution.

the LRA would be a mere robotic agency clothed only with mechanical powers." • "In reconstitution proceedings. Without such authority. as affirmed by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals. and existing." [Manotok IV vs. valid. 477 SCRA 339 (December 12. while petitioners' title is sham and spurious. the LRA is bound to determine from the evidence submitted which between or among the titles is genuine and existing to enable it to decide whether to deny or approved the petition.ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE • "The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title is authentic. is conclusive before this Court. Heirs of Homer Barque. genuine. 2005)] .

. No. 1529 which expressly states that a Torrens title cannot be canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.D. DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY JUSTICE CARPIO • The majority opinion patently violates Section 48 of P. Only the proper trial court in an action directly attacking the validity of a Torrens title can cancel a Torrens title after trial on the merits. • The reconstitution of a certificate of title is far from being a ministerial act.

Thus.DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY JUSTICE CARPIO • In accordance with paragraph 8 of LRA Circular No. . 13. the reconstituting officer or the register of deeds shall issue an order of reconstitution only after appropriate verification which means that he must be convinced that the certificate of title is genuine and not spurious. The process of verification allows the reconstituting officer to counter check with other government agencies to determine the validity of the title to be reconstituted. the reconstituting officer must go beyond the owner’s co- owner's duplicate certificate of title to determine whether the title is genuine.

.DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY JUSTICE CARPIO • The LRA has jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions on petitions for reconstitution. Clearly. in its 24 June 1998 Resolution. LRA's jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative reconstitution does not include the power to declare a title sham so spurious or to order the cancellation of a certificate title. recognized that only the Regional Trial Court could declare a title fraudulently reconstituted. The LRA. it is not within its powers and functions to declare a title void. However.

The LRA also preempted whatever decision the RTC may render on the matter. et. the LRA assumed the function of the RTC. The LRA itself acknowledged that only the RTC could declare a title fraudulently reconstituted.DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY JUSTICE CARPIO • The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared that Manotok. al's title is sham and spurious. . By ruling on the validity of Manotok et al's title.

like the original certificate of title. A reconstituted title. by itself. by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY JUSTICE CARPIO • Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title which. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. . does not determine or resolve the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title. It does not determine or resolve the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title.

Blg.DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY JUSTICE CARPIO • The determination of the authenticity of documents and veracity of the claims of both parties requires a trial on the merits. to factual findings of an administrative body. [Monotok IV vs. Such function falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC under Section 19 of BP. Heirs of Homer Barque. However. this rule does not apply when the administrative body has no jurisdiction to make a conclusive factual finding particularly when the findings might conflict with findings of the tribunal or agency which has jurisdiction on the matter. 129. The Court of Appeals should not have resolved the factual issues by adopting as its own the LRA's finding. The Court accords respect. if not finality. The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when it made a conclusive finding on the validity of the titles of the parties. Supra] .

[Navotas Industrial Corp. However. vs. such person is charged with notice of the burden on the property which is noted on the face of the register or certificate of title. Cruz. 2005)] . ADVERSE CLAIMS • The general rule is that a person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property. 469 SCRA 530 (September 12. A person who deals with registered land is bound by the liens and encumbrances including adverse claim annotated therein.

• THANK YOU FOR LISTENING • HAVE A GOOD DAY .