Registration of Voluntary Instrument

• No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds

unless the owner’s duplicate certificate is presented together with
such instrument, except in some cases or upon order of the court for
cause shown.
• To affect the land sold, the presentation of the deed of sale and its
entry in the day book must be done with the surrender of the
owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title.
• After compliance with this and other requirements shall actual
registration retroact to the date of entry in the day book.
In case of refusal or failure to surrender
owner’s duplicate certificate

• “SEC. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates. — xxx where a

voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal
or failure of the holder to surrender the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in court to
compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. xxx.”
Forged Deed
• GR: A forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title.
• Sec. 53 - any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged
duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null
and void.
• EXC: A forged deed may become the root of a valid title if the
certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the
true owner to the name of the forger and the land was subsequently
sold to an innocent purchaser.
(Blondeau v. Nano)
Forged Deed
(Blondeau v. Nano)
• The Supreme Court held that as between two innocent persons,
Blondeau and Vallejo, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a
breach of trust, Vallejo who made it possible by his act of confidence
must bear the loss.
• Agustin Nano had possession of Jose Vallejo's title papers. Without
those title papers handed over to Nano with the acquiescence of
Vallejo, a fraud could not have been perpetrated.
• The law erects a safeguard against a forged transfer being registered
by the requirement that no transfer shall be registered unless the
owner’s certificate is produced along with the instrument of transfer.
Forged Deed
• The remedy of the persons prejudiced:
• Bring an action for damages against those who caused the fraud,
and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of
the Philippines may be filed for recovery of damages against the
Assurance Fund
(Adriano v. Pangilinan)
Rule when owner is not at fault
• Respondent - who, we repeat, is engaged in the business of lending money
secured by real estate mortgages - could have easily avoided the loss by
simply exercising due diligence in ascertaining the identity of the impostor
who claimed to be the owner of the property being mortgaged. (Adriano v.
Pangilinan)

• The case should be differentiated from Blondeau v. Nano. The latter

involved an individual who, by his negligence, enabled other person to
cause the cancellation of the original certificate of title over the disputed
property and the issuance of a new one in his favor. Having obtained title in
his name, he conveyed the subject property to third person who was a
bona fide purchaser. It should be stressed that the seller was the
registered owner of the subject property; whereas in Adriano, the
mortgagor was an impostor, not the registered owner.
(Blondeau v. Nano) (Adriano v. Pangilinan)
Rule when owner is not at fault
• The giving of a certificate of title by the owners to another person is
not in itself an act of negligence, especially so where it does not
appear that the owner has executed any document authorizing the
holder of the certificate to execute deeds for and in their behalf. But
one who consents to be the mortgagee of said certificate of title
without taking sufficient care to see to it that the person who
executed the deed of mortgage is the real registered owner of the
property is guilty of negligence and must suffer for it. (Joaquin v.
Madrid)
Rule when owner is not at fault
• Solivel v. Francisco
• Issue is whether or not the buyer is deemed a purchaser in good faith on the
basis of a deed of sale executed in the name of the owners by one falsely
claiming to be the authorized attorney-in-fact of the latter. The lower court
held that although the power of attorney was forged, Cagas was an innocent
purchaser for value. It applied the case of Blondeau v. Nano.
• SC: NO. Here, the title was still in the name of the real owner when the land
was mortgaged to the plaintiffs by the impostor. The plaintiffs were defrauded
not because they relied in the certificate of title but because they believed
the impostor when he told them that he was the person named in the
certificate.
Rule in case of double sales
• Where two or more transfer certificates of title are issued to different
persons for the same lots, or subdivisions thereof, due to the fact that
the original title was not cancelled when the first transfer certificates
of title were issued to replace the original title, the earlier in date
prevails.
• ‘The vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against
the vendee of the owner of the later certificate.’
• Prior est in tempore, potior est in jure (he who is first in time is
preferred in right)
Remedy of aggrieved party

• “The purchaser from the owner of the later certificate and his
successors, should resort to his vendor for redress, rather than molest
the holder of the first certificate and his successors, who should be
permitted to rest secure in their title.”
Mortgagee in good faith.
• The prevailing jurisprudence is that a mortgagee has a right to rely in
good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor to the property
given as security and in the absence of any sign that might arouse
suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation.
• For persons, more particularly those who are engaged in real estate
or financing business, to be considered as mortgagees in good faith,
they should take the necessary precaution expected of a prudent man
to ascertain the status and condition of the properties offered as
collateral and to verify the identity of the persons they transact
business with, particularly those who claim to be the registered
property owners.
Memorandum of encumbrances.
• At the dorsal side of a certificate of title is a memorandum of
encumbrances affecting the property.
• It is not necessary to issue a new certificate on the basis of an
instrument which does not divest the ownership or title from the
owner or from the transferee of the registered owner.
• A brief memorandum of the nature of the instrument entered on the
certificate of title, signed by the Register of Deeds, shall serve as
notice to third parties of the instrument affecting the property.
Contents of the instrument presented for
registration
• Full name, nationality, status, residence and postal address of the
grantee or person acquiring interest under such instrument. If the
grantee is a corporation or association, the instrument shall contain a
statement whether or not it is legally qualified to acquire private
lands.
• Changes in the names, residences and postal addresses of all par- ties
to the instrument shall also be entered on all certificates.
• Notices and processes affecting the land shall be served upon the
person in interest at the address given, which shall be binding
whether or not such person is within or outside the Philippines.
Primary entry book or day book.
• The primary entry book is a record of all instruments, include ing
copies of writs and processes, affecting registered lands, which are
entered by the Register of Deeds in the order of their filing, upon
payment of the proper fees.
Deeds entered in the day book considered registered from
the moment they are so noted.
• “Deeds relating to registered land shall, upon payment of the filing
fee, be entered in the primary entry book –– also called day book ––
with a notation of the date, hour and minute of reception, and “they
shall be regarded as registered from the moment so noted.”
Record is constructive notice of its contents.

• Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has

examined every instrument of record affecting the title. He is charged
with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to
know every fact which an examination of the record would have
disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of
innocence or good faith. Otherwise the very purpose and object of
the law requiring a record would be destroyed.