LAND TITLE & DEEDS

AEJAY V. BARIAS
PCU-COLLEGE OF LAW
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
REGALIAN DOCTRINE (JURA REGALIA)

All lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not otherwise appearing
to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State which is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land.

Jure Regalia means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands and is the general
source of all private titles. All claims of private title to land, save those acquired from
native title, must be traced from some grant, whether express or implied, from the
state. Absent a clear showing that the land had been into private ownership through the
State’s imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to State
To prove that the subject property is alienable and disposable land of the
public domain, applicant must :
(1) Present a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
Certificate (CENRO);
(2) Prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and
released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable ; and
(3) That the land subject of the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or
CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a
copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
To prove that the subject property is alienable and disposable land of the
public domain, applicant must :
(1) Present a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
Certificate (CENRO);
(2) Prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and
released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable ; and
(3) That the land subject of the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or
CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a
copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN THE PRESENT AND
PREVIOUS CONSTITUTIONS

The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, embodies the principle of State
ownership of lands and all other natural resources in Section 2 of Article XII on “National Economy and
Patrimony,” to wit:
“SEC. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be
for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under
such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.”
 The principle had its roots in the 1935 Constitution which expressed the overwhelming sentiment in
the Convention in favor of the principle of State ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the
Regalian doctrine as articulated in Section 1 of Article XIII on “Conservation and Utilization of Natural
Resources” as follows:
“SEC. 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all-forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong
to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of
the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is
owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the
exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the
exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial
uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and
the limit of the grant.”
 The 1973 Constitution reiterated the Regalian doctrine in Section 8, Article XIV on
the “National Economy and the Patrimony of the Nation,” to wit:
“SEC. 8. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources
of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or
commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources
shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration,
development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted
for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses
other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the
measure and the limit of the grant.”
 The present Constitution provides that, except for agricultural lands of
the public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and
mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the
State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject
to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into co-
production, joint venture or production sharing agreements, or into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development and utilization.
THE DOCTRINE DOES NOT NEGATE “NATIVE TITLE”

The Regalian Doctrine does not negate native title to lands held in private ownership since
time immemorial (Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385,
December 6, 2000).

Native Title
It refers to a pre- conquest rights to lands and domains which dates as far back as memory reaches,
have been held under a claim of private ownership by Indigenous Cultural Communities of Indigenous
Peoples, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way
before Spanish conquest [RA 8371 Sec. 3(l)].
Time immemorial possession for native title
It refers to a period of time as far back as memory can go, certain
Indigenous Cultural Communities of Indigenous Peoples are known to have
occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined
territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law or inherited
from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and tradition
THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

It is a system of registration of transactions with interest in

land, whose declared object is, under governmental authority, to
establish and to certify the ownership of an absolute and
indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer (Grey Alba v.
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 5246, September 16, 1910).
PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION

To quiet title to land and to stop forever any questions as to its legality.
The Torrens system aims to decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable,
and indisputable.
The Government has adopted the Torrens system due to its being the
most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized (Casimiro Development Corporation v. Nato Mateo, G.R. No.
175485, July 27, 2011).
REGISTRATION IS NOT A MODE OF ACQUIRING
OWNERSHIP
Registration does not vest title. It is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. Our land
registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has. Registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership but is merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over realty. It has been held that where
petitioners’ registration of their deed of sale was done in bad faith, it is as if no registration was made at all insofar as
private respondent is concerned. Conversely, actual knowledge of petitioners of the sale to private respondent
amounted to registration thereof.
Knowledge of a prior transfer of a registered property by a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser in bad
faith and his knowledge of such transfer vitiates his title acquired by virtue of the latter instrument of conveyance
with creates no right as against the first purchaser.
Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant private or public
ownership of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of ownership
previously conferred by any of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership. Registration does not give the
registrant a better right than what the registrant had prior to the registration. The registration of lands of the public
domain under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands.
MIRROR DOCTRINE

All persons dealing with a property covered by Torrens certificate of title are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. Where there is nothing on
the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or
any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what
the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right
that may defeat his right thereto
APPLICATION OF MIRROR DOCTRINE
GR: Mirror Doctrine applies when a title over a land is registered under the Torrens system

XPN: Mirror Doctrine cannot be invoked where:

1. The purchaser or mortgagee is a bank/financing institution;
2. The owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same property because the law protects the
lawful holder of a registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible right;
3. The purchaser is in bad faith;
4. The purchaser purchases land with a certificate of title containing a notice of lis pendens;
5. There are sufficiently strong indications to impel closer inquiry into the location, boundaries and condition of the lot;
6. The purchaser had full knowledge of flaws and defects in the title; or
7. A person buys land not from the registered owner but from whose rights to the land has been merely annotated on the
certificate of title.
ADVANTAGES OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM
Sir Robert Torrens summarized the benefits of the system of registration of titles, to wit:
(a) It has substituted security for insecurity;
(b) It has reduced the cost of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months
to days;
(c) It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage;
(d) It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the ‘three R’s’ can transact his own
conveyancing;
(e) It affords protection against fraud;
(f) It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding titles, but depreciated in
consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults
 Worth reiterating is that the main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid
possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by
giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to
make such further inquiry. Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of
the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court cannot
disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of
such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of
title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would
have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been regularly or
irregularly issued by the court. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely
on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way
oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.
REGISTRATION UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM IS A PROCEEDING
IN REM
The main principle of registration is to make registered titles indefeasible. Upon the presentation in court of an
application for the registration of the title to lands, the theory under the Torrens system is that all occupants, adjoining
owners, adverse claimants, and other interested persons are notified of the proceedings, and have a right to appear in
opposition to such application. In other words, the proceeding is against the whole world. This system was evidently
considered by the Legislature to be a public project when it passed Act No. 496 and later, PD No. 1529. The interest of the
community at large was considered to be preferred to that of private individuals.
A proceeding is in rem when the object of the action is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an
objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the
strength of alleging facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest. But if the technical object of the suit is to establish a
claim against some particular person, with a judgment which generally, in theory at least, binds his body, or to bar some
individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defense, then the action is in
personam.
The in rem character of the proceeding is perhaps best appreciated by citing a paragraph in Roxas v. Enriquez58 which
recounts the history of the rule: “This rule was first established in admiralty proceedings. It was established out of the very
necessities of the case. The owner of a ship, for instance, lived in London. His ship was found in the most distant ports of the
earth. Its operation necessarily required supplies, such as men, coal, and food. The very nature of its business necessitated
the making of contracts. The continuance of its voyage depended upon its capacity to make contracts and to get credit. It
might also, perchance, cause damage to other craft, in like conditions. To be able to secure all such necessities, to satisfy all
possible obligations, to continue its voyage and its business on the high seas, merchants and courts came to regard the ‘ship’
as a person, with whom or with which they were dealing, and not its real owner. Consequently there came into existence
this action in rem. For the purpose of carrying into effect the broader purposes of the Torrens land law, it has been
universally considered that the action should be considered as one in rem.”
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
LAND REGISTRATION CASES
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts over matters involving the registration of lands and
lands registered under the Torrens system is conferred by Section 2 of PD No. 1529, while jurisdiction
over petitions for amendments of certificates of title is provided for by Section 108 of the Decree.
Section 2 provides that “Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of titles to lands, including improvements and
interest therein and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.” Before the enactment of PD No.
1529, and as ruled in a long line of decisions dealing with proceedings under Section 112 of the Land
Registration Act (Act No. 496), summary reliefs, such as an action to compel the surrender of owner’s
duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds, could only be filed with the Regional Trial Court,
sitting as a land registration court, if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or
serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise, the case becomes contentious and
controversial which should be threshed out in an ordinary action or in the case where the incident
property belonged.
EXCEPTION; DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF FIRST LEVEL COURTS

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases in the following instances:

a. Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject of controversy; or

b. b. Where the lot is contested but the value thereof does not exceed P100,000.00,
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by the agreement of
the respective claimants, if there be more than one, or from the corresponding tax
declaration of the real property.
JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES INVOLVING TITLE TO, OR
POSSESSION OF PROPERTY

Pursuant to Section 19(2) of BP Blg. 129, as amended, Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, or for civil actions in Metropolitan Manila, where such value
exceeds P50,000.00, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts.
It bears reiterating that what determines jurisdiction are the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed
for. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to property, it should be filed in the proper court
having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property. An action for reconveyance or for the annulment of a
deed of sale and partition is one involving the title to or interest in property. Thus, in an action for reconveyance, the
complaint should allege the assessed value of the property to determine what court has jurisdiction. But if the
complaint simply alleges the “market value” of the property as, say, P15,000.00, it is the inferior court, not the
Regional Trial Court, which has jurisdiction over the case.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COURT’S GENERAL AND LIMITED
JURISDICTION ELIMINATED

Section 2 has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction

vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by
the former law when acting merely as a land registration or cadastral court.
Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration
proceedings by conferring upon Regional Trial Courts the authority to act not
only on applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions
arising upon such applications or petitions.63 In other words, the court is no
longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction. It is now authorized to hear
and decide not only non-controversial cases but even the contentious and
substantial issues which were beyond its competence before.
SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 6-93-A

On November 15, 1995, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A, providing
that:
1. Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of this Administrative Circular but
where hearing has not yet commenced shall be transferred by the Executive Judge of the Regional
Trial Court having jurisdiction over the cases to the Executive Judge of the appropriate Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for
the required raffle among the branches of the Court under his administrative supervision; and
2. Cadastral or land registration cases pending in the Regional Trial Courts where trial had already been
commenced as of the date of the effectivity of the Administrative Circular shall remain with said
courts. However, by agreement of the parties, these cases may be transferred to the appropriate
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts.
REGISTRATION COURT IS NOT DIVESTED OF ITS JURISDICTION BY
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PATENT

It has been held that a land registration court which has validly acquired
jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested
of said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the
issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the
same parcel of land. As held in De los Angeles v. Santos,68 the Director of
Lands’ jurisdiction, administrative supervision and executive control extend
only to lands of the public domain and not to lands already of private
ownership. Accordingly, a homestead patent issued over land not of the
public domain is a nullity, devoid of force and effect against the owner.
REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW
DISCONTINUED.
On February 16, 1976, PD No. 892 was issued decreeing the discontinuance of the system of registration
under the Spanish Mortgage Law and the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings. The
Decree provides:
“SEC. 1. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is discontinued, and all lands recorded
under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands.
All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise
known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this decree. Thereafter,
Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership in any registration proceedings under the Torrens
system.
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded
under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344.
SEC. 2. All laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the foregoing
provisions are hereby repealed or accordingly modified.”
 It became necessary to discontinue the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law since recording under this
system was practically nil and has become obsolete. Even so, it may be useful to recall that the registration of instruments affecting
unregistered land was previously governed by Section 194 of the Administrative Code. Section 194 was amended by Act No. 2837
and later by Act No. 3344. Rights acquired under the system were not absolute as they must yield to better rights.
Section 3 of PD No. 1529 reiterates the discontinuance of the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law. It also
provides that the books of registration for unregistered lands under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended
by Act No. 3344, shall continue to be in force, but all instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered
under Section 113 of the Decree which reads:
“SEC. 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands. –– No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such
instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
where the land lies.
(a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry
Book shall contain, among other particulars, the entry number, the names of the parties, the nature of the document, the date, hour
and minute it was presented and received. The recording of the deed and other instruments relating to unregistered lands shall be
effected by way of annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same shall have been entered in
the Primary Entry Book.
(b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument
in the manner provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds refuses its admission to record, said official shall advise the party in
interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the Commissioner of Land
Registration in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be understood that any recording made under
this section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
(c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall endorse, among other things, upon the original of the recorded
instruments, the file number and the date as well as the hour and minute when the document was received for recording as shown
in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with appropriate
annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the provincial or city
assessor as required by existing law.
(d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and other instruments in the nature of
involuntary dealings with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient in law, shall likewise be
admissible to record under this section.
(e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this section, he shall collect the same
amount of fees prescribed for similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments concerning
registered lands.”
Significantly, any recording under the section “shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better
right.”
The inscription under Act No. 3344 of a transaction relating to unregistered land was held not effective
for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code, the law on double sale of the same property. The registration
should be made in the property registry to be binding upon third persons. However, in one case, it was held
that where the owner of a parcel of unregistered land sold it to two different parties, assuming that both sales
are valid, the vendee whose deed of sale was first registered under the provisions of Act No. 3344 would have
a better right.
A title duly registered during the Spanish regime under the system of registration then in vogue must yield
to a title to the same lands duly registered under Act No. 496. Under the provisions of said Act, “every decree
of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto,” and “shall be conclusive upon and against all persons,
including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof.” The title having been registered by proper
decree, it was good, after it became final, as to everybody, and cannot be attacked by any person claiming the
same land under title anterior to the decree of registration
SPANISH TITLES NO LONGER USED AS EVIDENCE OF LAND
OWNERSHIP
Spanish titles are quite dissimilar to administrative and judicial titles under the present system. Although
evidences of ownership, these Spanish titles may be lost through prescription. They are, therefore, neither indefeasible
nor imprescriptible.
By express provision of PD No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence
of land ownership in all registration proceedings. The reason for this is the proliferation of dubious Spanish titles
which have raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
Specifically, the Decree noted that fraudulent sales, transfers, and other forms of conveyances of large tracts of public
and private lands to unsuspecting and unwary buyers appear to have been perpetrated by unscrupulous persons
claiming ownership under Spanish titles or grants of dubious origin, and that these fraudulent transactions have often
resulted in conflicting claims and litigations between legitimate title holders, bona fide occupants or applicants of
public lands, on the one hand, and the holders of, or persons claiming rights under, the said Spanish titles or grants, on
the other, thus creating confusion and instability in property ownership and threatening the peace and order
conditions in the areas affected.
The foundation for the early Spanish decrees on land grants embraced the feudal theory of jura regalia.
Consequently, all lands of any kind, technically speaking, were under the exclusive dominion of the Spanish crown. The
Spanish government distributed lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to settlers and other people in various
forms. Such forms included the following: (a) the “titulo real” or royal grant; (b) the “concession especial” or special
grant; (c) the “composicion con el estado” title or adjustment title; (d) the “titulo de compra” or title by purchase; (e)
the “informacion possessoria” or possessory information title; and (f) the “titulo gratuito” or a gratuitous title.
However, as already pointed out, Spanish titles are no longer efficacious as proof of ownership in land registration
proceedings.
CHAPTER II
THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

The Land Registration Commission has been renamed Land Registration Authority
(LRA) pursuant to Section 28, Chapter 9, Title III, of EO No. 292, known as the
Administrative Code of 1987. It is headed by an Administrator who shall be assisted by
two (2) Deputy Administrators, all of whom shall be appointed by the President upon
the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. All other officials of the LRA, except
Registers of Deeds, shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon
recommendation of the Administrator.
FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY

The Land Registration Authority shall have the following functions:

(a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform, the
Land Bank, and other agencies in the implementation of the land reform program of
the government;
(b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings;
(c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled
under the Torrens system, including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled
lands.
FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
The LRA Administrator shall have the following functions:
(a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts in land registration proceedings
and cause the issuance by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title;
(b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other personnel of the Commission;
(c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of, Registers of Deeds;
(d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the Courts of First Instance
throughout the Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and functions in relation to
the registration of lands;
(e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the registration of lands and
issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor;
(f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision survey plans of properties
titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by PD No. 957
LRA ADMINISTRATOR, AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITH JUDICIAL
RANK

While Section 5 states that the “Commissioner x x x shall have the same rank, compensation and
privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance” (Associate Justice of a collegiate appellate
court, per EO No. 649, dated Feb. 9, 1981), his functions are plainly executive and subject to the
President’s power of supervision and control. He can be investigated and removed only by the President
and not by the Supreme Court which is not charged with the administrative function of supervisory
control over executive officials. Thus did the Supreme Court rule in Noblejas v. Teehankee where
petitioner, then the LRC Commissioner, sought to restrain the Secretary of Justice from investigating him
for allegedly “approving or recommending approval of subdivision, consolidation and consolidation-
subdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the original titles” and to
declare inoperative his suspension by the Executive Secretary pending investigation. Petitioner claimed
that as he enjoyed the rank, privileges, emoluments and compensation of a Judge of the Court of First
Instance, he could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as a Judge of the Court of
First Instance, and, therefore, the papers relative to his case should be submitted to the Supreme Court
for action thereon.
DUTY OF LRA TO ISSUE DECREE MINISTERIAL

While the duty of the LRA officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial, it is ministerial only in the sense that
they act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with
the data found in the record, as to which they have no discretion on the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon
any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court.
They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the
court. They are specifically called upon to “extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration
proceedings.”
Thus, where the Administrator files his report as an officer of the court precisely to inform the latter that the LRA
cannot comply with the order to issue a decree because the subject lot sought to be registered was discovered to
have been already decreed and titled in the name of another, the LRA, under the circumstances, is not legally
obligated to follow the court’s order for the issuance of the decree.
The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of courts and is not compellable by mandamus
because it involves the exercise of discretion.8 The duty of land registration officials to render reports is not limited
to the period before the court’s decision becomes final, but may extend even after its finality but not beyond the
lapse of one (1) year from the entry of the decree.
THE LRA HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT
IN REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Solicitor General, as

counsel for the government, shall represent the government “in all land
registration and related proceedings.”10 PD No. 1529, specifically Section 6
thereof which enumerates the functions of the LRA, is bereft of any grant
of power to the LRA or to the Administrator to make the same
representation as the Solicitor General on behalf of the government in
land registration proceedings.
THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY
The registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry, in
order to affect and bind the land and, thus, operate as constructive notice to the world. This is in full
accord with Section 51 of PD No. 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary
instrument — except a will — purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land until its registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding only
between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect innocent third persons.
The Civil Code, in Article 708, has provided for the establishment of a Registry of Property which
has for its object the inscription or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and other
rights over immovable property. PD No. 1529 has codified all laws relative to the registration of property
and provides for the registration of lands under the Torrens system a well as the recording of
transactions affecting unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages of personal property.
MEANING OF REGISTRATION
Registration means the entry of instruments or deeds in a book or public registry. To register means to enter in a
register; to record formally and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a list.
“Registration in general, as the law uses the word, means any entry made in the books of the Registry, including both
registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal notes. In its strict
acceptation, it is the entry made in the Registry which records solemnly and permanently the right of ownership and other
real rights.”
Registration in the public registry is notice to all the world. All persons are charged with the knowledge of what it
contains. All persons dealing with the land so recorded, or any portion of it, must be charged with notice of whatever it
contains. The purchaser is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which
the record discloses. When a conveyance has been properly recorded, such record is constructive notice of its contents and
all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.
Section 51 of PD No. 1529 provides that “no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will
purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a
contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. The act of
registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases
under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land lies.”
 Thus, where a piece of property is first sold to a person who only
secures a receipt for the document evidencing the sale from the office of
the Register of Deeds, and where the piece of property is later sold to
another person who records his document in the Registry of Deeds as
provided by law, and secures a Torrens title, the property belongs to the
latter person.
Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered under
the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to: (1) the first
registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3)
finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. This rule,
however, does not apply if the property is not registered under the Torrens
system.
EFFECT OF REGISTRATION

Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment,

instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or
entered in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city. The
Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial jurisdiction of each Registry
upon the recommendation of the LRA Administrator, with the end in view of making every
Registry easily accessible to the people of the neighboring municipalities.
Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by the President upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds and all other subordinate personnel of the
Registries of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon the recommendation of
the LRA Administrator. Both the Register of Deeds and Deputy Register of Deeds must be
members of the Bar.
The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of
instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or
city wherein such office is situated.24 The existence of a certificate of title in the Registry
supports the authenticity of the title.
 DUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS TO REGISTER, MINISTERIAL
Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract or instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records
of the office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of the title covering the land subject of
the deed, contract or instrument.
Section 10 states that “(i)t shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented
for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration. He shall see to
it that said instrument bears the proper documentary and science stamps and that the same are properly cancelled. If the
instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in writing,
stating the ground or reason therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of
this Decree.”
It has been held that the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances,
instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. He may not validly refuse to register a deed of sale presented to him for
registration. Whether a document is valid or not is not for the Register of Deeds to determine; this function belongs
properly to a court of competent jurisdiction. The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be
registered. If the purpose of registration is merely to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
instruments are expected to be decided after, not before, registration. It must follow as a necessary consequence that
registration must first be allowed, and the validity or effect thereof litigated afterwards.
 INSTANCES WHERE THE REGISTER OF DEEDS MAY DENY
REGISTRATION

While the duty of the Register of Deeds to register instruments dealing with registered property is ministerial, there are
instances when he may be justified in denying registration, to wit:
1. When there are several copies of the title (co-owner’s duplicate) but only one is presented with the instrument to be
registered.
Where there are several copies of the same title in existence, it is easy to see how their integrity may be adversely affected if an
encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is annotated on one copy and not on the others. The law itself refers to every copy
authorized to be issued as a duplicate of the original, which means that both must contain identical entries of the transactions,
particularly voluntary ones, affecting the land covered by the title. If this were not so, if different copies were permitted to carry
differing annotations, the whole system of Torrens registration would cease to be reliable.
2. When the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one
spouse.
In a donation, for instance, where the deed is signed by only one of the spouses, such deed bears on its face an infirmity which
justifies the denial of its registration, namely, the fact that the donor is donating more than his one-half share in the property.
3. When there is a pending case in court where the character of the land and validity of the conveyance are in issue.
In such a case, the matter of registration may well await the outcome of that case, and in the meantime the rights of the interested
parties could be protected by filing the proper notices of lis pendens.
DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO LRA
ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESOLUTION
A Register of Deeds is precluded from exercising his personal judgment and discretion when confronted
with the problem of whether to register a deed or instrument on the ground that it is invalid. When in doubt,
all that he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the LRA Administrator who shall, after
notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question. Corollarily, where
any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any
instrument submitted to him for registration, the question shall be submitted to the LRA Administrator who
shall thereafter “enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made,” which shall be
“conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds.” This administrative remedy must be resorted to by the
interested party before he can have recourse to the courts.
Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or intended to harass, is not the duty of Register of Deeds to
decide, but a court of competent jurisdiction.” The question of whether or not a conveyance was made to
defraud creditors of the transferor should better be left for determination by the proper court. There is as
much danger in giving this authority to the Register of Deeds without judicial intervention. And although there
may be some matters in which the Register of Deeds has quasi-judicial power, a suit to quiet title or to
ascertain and determine an interest in real property is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
courts.
NOTICE TO REGISTER OF DEEDS

When a writ of preliminary injunction in a cadastral proceeding is dissolved, the obstacle to the
registration of a deed of sale is removed, but it is no authority for the court to issue an order for
registration of said deed without notice to the Register of Deeds or to the adverse party, where the
dismissal of the cadastral case is not yet final. It is one thing for the Register of Deeds, in the exercise of
his ministerial duties under the law, to register an instrument which in his opinion is registrable, and
quite another thing for the court When a writ of preliminary injunction in a cadastral proceeding is
dissolved, the obstacle to the registration of a deed of sale is removed, but it is no authority for the court
to issue an order for registration of said deed without notice to the Register of Deeds or to the adverse
party, where the dismissal of the cadastral case is not yet final. It is one thing for the Register of Deeds, in
the exercise of his ministerial duties under the law, to register an instrument which in his opinion is
registrable, and quite another thing for the court
ONLY THE LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU HAS AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE ORIGINAL SURVEY PLANS FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES

Pursuant to PD No. 239, dated July 9, 1973, the authority of the Land Registration Authority
(formerly Land Registration Commission) to approve original survey plans has been withdrawn. The
authority to approve survey plans intended for original registration purposes used to be exercised jointly
by the Land Registration Commission (LRC) and the Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau).
The reason for the grant of such authority to the LRC was to facilitate expropriation by the government
of big landed estates intended for distribution and resale at cost to tenant-farmers under the Agricultural
Land Reform Code. However, under PD No. 27, dated October 21, 1972, there is no more necessity for
the government to expropriate big landed estates as the tenant tillers of rice and corn lands have already
been declared as owners of the lands they till. The grant of authority to the LRC to approve original
survey plans has resulted in wasteful overlapping or duplication of functions, not to mention the
deterioration of surveying standards and confusion in land survey records. There was therefore a need to
centralize in one agency, the Lands Management Bureau (LMB), the function of verifying and approving
original survey plans for all purposes in order to assure compliance with established standards and
minimize irregularities in the execution of land surveys.