Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Payment of realty taxes for a brief and fleeting period simply cannot
be considered sufficient proof of ownership. It is clear, therefore,
that respondent’s assertion of possession before 1945 will not
suffice for applicants for registration must present proof of specific
acts of possession and ownership and cannot just offer general
statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual
evidence of possession.
Furthermore, it bears stressing that tax declarations and receipts
are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess
land when not supported by any other evidence. The disputed
property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the
names of the applicants for registration, or of their predecessors-in-
interest, but it does not necessarily prove ownership. They are
merely indicia of a claim of ownership.
However…
Nabo vs. Buenviaje, G.R. No. 224906,
October 07, 2020
The State shall file the Petition for Original Registration of the
lands surveyed claiming ownership thereof as against all the
holders, claimants, possessors, or occupants of such lands or
any part thereof
Filing of Claims/Answer
Applies if the one that was lost is the title in the possession of
the Register of Deeds
May be done Judicially under Act No. 26 or Administratively
under RA 6732 - AN ACT ALLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE
RECONSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL COPIES OF
CERTIFICATES OF TITLES LOST OR DESTROYED DUE
TO FIRE, FLOOD AND OTHER FORCE MAJEURE (at
least 10% was lost or destroyed)
Basis of Reconstitution
for Lost OCT
Section 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder
enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds
or by a legal custodian thereof;
Basis of Reconstitution
for Lost OCT
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be,
pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description
of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered;
and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Basis for Reconstitution
of TCT
No publication is required
No notice and appearance of Solicitor General is required. ([G.R.
No. 128531. October 26, 1999] REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
VICENTE L. YUPANGCO, JR., respondents.)
Register of Deeds and LRA must be impleaded as necessary parties
Judgment becomes final after a period of 15 days from receipt
Section 108. Amendment and alteration
of certificates.
May be requested from the Registry by a co-owner so he can have a separate owner’s copy
of the title.
The originally issued owner’s duplicate of the title has to be surrendered to the RD so that
proper annotation may be made on each owner’s duplicates as to the actual number of
duplicates issued so far.
If there is a transaction, all the issued owner’s duplicates have to be surrendered for proper
annotation or cancellation;
Petition to Surrender a Withheld owner’s duplicate may be filed by a co-owner in case he
cannot make a request in the Register of Deeds because the other co-owner who has
custody of the title does not want to surrender said title to the Register of Deeds for proper
annotation of issuance of another owner’s duplicate of the title.
CONSULTA
70 of PD 1529 states:
Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered
land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the
original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for
registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his
alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the
number of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the
registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is
claimed.
Effectivity of Adverse Claim
Thus, the prevailing rule is that voluntary instruments such as contracts of sale,
contracts to sell, and conditional sales are registered by presenting the owner's
duplicate copy of the title for annotation, pursuant to Sections 51 to 53 of PD 1529.55
The reason for requiring the production of the owner's duplicate certificate in the
registration of a voluntary instrument is that, being a willful act of the registered
owner, it is to be presumed that he is interested in registering the instrument and
would willingly surrender, present or produce his duplicate certificate of title to the
Register of Deeds in order to accomplish such registration. The exception to this rule
56
is when the registered owner refuses or fails to surrender his duplicate copy of the
title, in which case the claimant may file with the Register of Deeds a statement
setting forth his adverse claim. (Logarta vs. Mangahis, G.R. No. 213568, July 5,
2016).
Notice of Lis Pendens
A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real
property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said
property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the
said property (AFPMBAI v. CA, G.R. No. 104769, March 3, 2000). The filing of a notice
of lis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the particular litigation referred to
therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on the property is subject to the
eventuality to the suit (Laroza v. Gilta, 134 SCRA 341 [1985]). Notice of lis pendens has
been conceived and, more often than not, availed of, to protect the real rights of the
registrant while the case involving such rights is pending resolution or decision. With the
notice of lis pendens duly recorded, and while it remains unconcealed, the registrant could
rest secure that he would not lose the property or any part of it during the litigation (People
v. Regional Trial Court of Manila, 178 SCRA 299 [1989]).
Notice of Lis Pendens
The doctrine rests upon public policy, not notice" (Tirado v. Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321 [1990]). "The
doctrine of lis pendens, as generally understood and applied by the courts of this country, is not
founded on any idea of constructive notice, since its true foundation rests, as has already been
stated, on principles of public policy and necessity. The lis pendens annotation, although
considered a general notice to all the world, … it is not correct to speak of it as part of the
doctrine of notice; the purchaser pendente lite is affected, not allow litigating parties to give to
others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute as to prejudice the opposite party.
The doctrine rests upon public policy, not notice" (Tirado v. Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321 [1990]). "The
doctrine of lis pendens, as generally understood and applied by the courts of this country, is not
based upon presumption of notice, but upon a public policy, imperatively demanded by a
necessity which can be met and overcome in no other way. It is careless 'use of language which
has led judges to speak of it as notice, because it happens to have in some instance similar effect
with notice' (Smith v. Kimball, 13 P. 801, 36 Kan. 474)."
How to Cancel Lis Pendens?