Module I: Registration

Po Sun Tun vs Price

Facts:

 Gabino Po Ejap was the owner of a parcel of land located in the municipality of
Tacloban, a province of Leyte. He sold the land to Po Tecsi, who was his brother, for
P8,000.
 Then, Po executed a deed of sale of the land in favor of Price and the sale was recorded in
the register of deeds. With the consent of Price’s wife, he sold the land to the Province of
Leyte.
 Previously, in a cadastral case, the subject land was claimed by Po Ejap and acting as his
agent, Po Tecsi, however the claimants were substituted with the names of the spouses
Price and an original certificate of title was issued to the said spouses and was then
transferred to the Province of Leyte
 However, at that time Ejap sold the land to Po Tecsi, Po Tecsi gave a general power of
atty including the right to sell to Ejap. Hence, Ejap sold the land to Jose Katigbak for the
amount of P8000 wherein the document appeared “Register of Deeds, Received. Dec. 15
1923. Province of Leyte. In turn, Katigbak sold the property to Po Sun Tun, who was the
son of Ejap, for P8000.
 Po Sun Tun filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Leyte to gain the possession of
the property.
 The court ruled in favor of Price and Province of Leyte.

Issue: Whether or not the deed by Ejap in favor of Katigbak was registered

Rule:

No. The mere presentation to the office of the register of deeds of a document on
which acknowledgment of receipt is written is not equivalent to recording or registering the
real property. Registration means any entry made in the books of the Registry, and it also
includes 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."

In the case at bar, the deed made by Po Ejap in favor of Katigbak was was never legally
recorded, and since the purchaser who did record his deed was Price, who secured a certificate of
title and transferred the same to the Province of Leyte, Po Sun Tun has no legal rights as against
Price and the Province of Leyte, the holders of indefeasible titles.

Vagilidad vs Vagilidad

Facts:
 A parcel of land was owned by Zoilo as evidenced in the original certificate of title.
When Zoilo died, Loreto, his son, sold a portion of the lot to Gabino Jr. known as Lot No.
1253-B.
 Then, Gabino Jr. sold the lot to Wilfredo evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale. On the
same day, a deed of absolute sale was executed by Loreto in favor of Wilfredo. Both of
the deeds, notarized by Atty Cardena, were given the same entry number in his notarial
books.
 Consequently, Wilfredo registered the sale and TCT was issued in his favor. Then,
Wilfredo and his wife obtained loan from several banks and mortgaged the said lot as
collateral.
 Later, Gabino Jr. and his wife, Dorothy, filed a complaint for annulment of document and
reconveyance against Wilfredo and his wife because he alleged that Wilfredo requested
them to transfer ownership of the subject lot to him for loaning purposes with the
agreement that the lot shall be returned to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the
document was null and void because of the absence of a consideration.
 On the other hand, Wilfredo and his spouse denied the allegations and claimed that
Loreto sold to them the subject lot for P5000 and the transaction was registered with the
Register of Deeds. Hence, as they possess the Torrens title, they had a better right.
 The RTC ruled in favor of Wilfredo, but was reversed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has a better right because he registered the property

Rule:

No. The Supreme Court held that while the title to the property was issued in
WILFREDO's name circumstances show that he registered the subject parcel with evident bad
faith. The deed of Absolute Sale of the land between LORETO and WILFREDO is tainted with
blatant irregularities. It is a fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Loreto to Wilfredo
and the Deed of Absolute Sale between GABINO, JR. and WILFREDO are of the same date.
Also, both Deeds had the same object — Lot No. 1253-B and were notarized by the same lawyer
bore the same entry in his notarial register.

Registration of property is not a means of acquiring ownership. Its alleged

indefeasibility/ incontrovertibility cannot be successfully invoked by WILFREDO because
certificates of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or be used as a shield
for the commission of fraud. 

Hence, the petition was denied and the Court ruled in favor of Gabino Jr.

Tiro vs Phil. Estates Corp.

Facts:

 Petitioners are heirs of Julian Tiro. They filed a complaint for quieting of title against
respondent before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City.
 Petitioners alleged that they are the children of the late Julian Tiro and late Pedro Tiro,
who were, according to them, the lawful absolute and registered owners of the disputed
land as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title
 However, they discovered that the OCT had already been cancelled and issued in favor of
the Spouses Baba.
 A document was executed by Ochea claiming to be the only surviving heir of Julian and
Pedro Tiro and ratified and confirmed the alleged sale of the land to to Spouses Baba.
 According to petitioners, Ochea was not in any way related to Julian and Pedro Tiro so
she had no right to transfer the property and thus the subsequent transfers were also
invalid.
 On the other hand, respondent claimed that its predecessor-in-interest acquired the
subject land from Spouses Velayo who were the registered owners of the and there was
no defect in the Spouses Velayo’s title to the property
 The RTC dismissed the petitioner’s complaint. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision
of the trial court. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: Whether or not the initial transfer that was fraudulent would render subsequent transfers
invalid.

Rule:

No. As a general rule, if a property was obtained fraudulently and was subsequently
registered under the person’s name, it would not be sufficient to vest him ownership of the
property because certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested.

However, where good faith is established, as in the case of an innocent purchaser for
value, a forged document may become the root of a valid title. In cases of registered land, he
may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor.
In the case at bar, respondent was clearly an innocent purchaser for value. It purchased
the disputed property for a valuable consideration and the titles presented to them were clean and
appeared valid on their face, and there was nothing therein which should have put the respondent
on its guard that such was a disputed property.

Hence, the transfer of property to the respondent corporation was valid. The petition was
denied.

Cruz vs Cabana
Facts:

 Cabaña sold a land to Legaspi spouses. Upon Cabaña’s request, the title of the land was
lent to her in order to mortgage the property to PNB.
 On the other hand, the Legaspi Spouses attempted to register the deed of sale but failed
to do so as they could not present the owner’s duplicate of title.
 Later, Cabaña sold the same property to Cruz and the latter was able to register it in his
name. However, he was informed that the owner has sold the land to the defendant-
spouses.
 Cruz filed a case before the RTC but the RTC ruled in favor of the defendant-spouses and
was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner has a better title to said land

Rule:

No. In case of double sale of real property, Article 1544 of CC shall apply. Article 1544
states that if the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership, should it
be immovable property, shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it
in the Registry of Property.

(T)he governing principle here is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in
right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's
rights except where the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale. Such
knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among
them, to register first her purchase as against the second buyer. Conversely, knowledge gained
by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second
sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith.

In the case at bar, when petitioner Cruz succeeded in registering the later sale in his favor,
he knew and he was informed of the prior sale in favor of respondents-spouses. Knowledge of a
prior transfer of a registered property by a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser in bad
faith.

Hence, the decision of the appellate court was upheld.

Republic vs Court of Appeals vs Ribaya

Facts:

 A parcel of land was approved by the Director of Lands to the Spouses RIbaya.
 Consequently, the spouses Ribaya applied for registration of the lot before the CFI of
Albay. Hence, the notice of the application and so as the hearing were published in the
Official Gazette and then, CFI granted the said application.
 Later, the land was resurveyed and included four different parcels of land. This was also
approved by the Director of Lands but the application was not amended to reflect the
resurvey and the amended plan was not published.
 A certificate of title was issued in the name of the spouses Ribaya covering the 4 lots.
 The subject property was subdivided and separate transfer certificates of title were issued
to the private respondents.
 62 farmers occupying the land and claimed ownership thereof requested the Director of
Lands to annul the original certificate of title owned by the spouses Ribaya
 Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the titles and
subsequent titles emanating from the original title.
 The petitioner claimed that the title was obtained through fraud and that the land
registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the land for lack of republication of the
amended plan.
 The RTC ruled in favor of the Republic, while the CA reversed the decision of the lower
court.

Issue: Whether or not the land registration court acquired jurisdiction

Rule:

No. The requirement of dual publication is one of the essential basis of the jurisdiction of
the registration court. Land registration is a proceeding in rem and jurisdiction in rem cannot be
acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the Land through publication and service of
notice. 

In the case at bar, there was only one publication for the notice of the application and
hearing for the registration of the of the original plan however, the governing law then, required
two publications. Hence, the decision of the land registration court was void for the lack of the
required publications. |

Also, the second decision concerning the amended survey plan was entirely based on an
alleged original survey plan. The fact remains, however, the amended plan was not published at
all.

Hence, the petition was granted.

Moscoso vs CA

Facts:

 Petitioner Moscoso applied for land registration of a residential lot. Her application stated
that she is the owner of the land and that she had inherited this from her father, Pascual
Monge.
 After due publication of the notice of the initial hearing in the Official Gazette, three
persons including private respondent Moron, presented themselves as private oppositors.
 They alleged that they were recognized natural children of the father of petitioner
Moscoso. Being so, they have right over the land.
 The trial court ruled that Pascual Monge acknowledged that private respondent Moron
was his daughter by the document she presented and granted respondent a share from the
subject land.
 Petitioner appealed before the CA but the CA affirmed the decision
Issue: Whether or not the CFI as a land registration court had jurisdiction to decide whether
respondent is an acknowledged natural child of Pascual.

Rule:

Yes. For the purpose of speedy justice and avoidance of multiplicity of suits, the trial
court, acting as a land registration court, may determine all questions arising upon application
and petition for registration.

Moreover, the Court held that the proceedings for the registration of title to land under
the Torrens system is an action in rem, not in personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants
of the property is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction as such decree shall be binding
upon all persons, known or unknown.

Hence, the Court ruled in favor of respondent Moron.

Melencion vs CA

Facts:

 The subject property is a parcel of land located in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu and such lot was
covered by the transfer certificate of title under the name of Go Kim Chuan.
 The property was originally owned by the grandmother of the Amodias, here in
petitioner. rthe entire property was under the operation of the Torrens System however,
due to the war, the certificate of title was lost.
 The Amodias sold the property to Aznar for P10,200. The said deed was registered under
Act 3344.
 The petitioners Amodias, conveyed the same property in favor of Go Kim Chuan for
P70,000. The lost title was reconstituted and subsequently, a transfer certificate of title
was issued in the name of Go Kim Chuan.
 Later, Aznar wrote a letter to the petitioners asking to nullify the sale entered into with
Go Kim Chuan, however this was not heeded by the petitioners, hence, Aznar filed a case
against the Amodias and Go Kim Chuan for annulment of sale and cancellation of the
certificate of title.
 The RTC dismissed Aznar’s complaint. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the
decision of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not Aznar had a better right over the subject property

Rule:

No. Since, this is a case of double sale of registered land, Article 1544 shall be
applicable. However, the Court has already ruled that the registration contemplated in this
provision is under the Torren System. Thus, in order to be binding, registration must be done in
the proper registry in order to bind the same.

Act 3344 provides for the system of recording of transactions or claims over unregistered
real estate without prejudice to a third party with a better right.  But if the land is registered under
the Land Registration Act (and therefore has a Torrens Title), and it is sold and the sale is
registered not under the Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, as amended, such sale is not
considered registered.

In this case, since AZNAR was registered the property under Act No. 3344 and not
under Act No. 496, the prevailing law at that time, the said document is deemed not
registered.  Rather, it was the sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan which was registered under Act No.
496. The fact that the certificate of title over the registered land is lost does not convert it into
unregistered land. After all, a certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over
the particular property described therein.

Since Go Kim Chuan registered the deed of sale under the Torren System and was a
registrant in good faith, he had the better right of the property.

Republic vs Dignos-Sorono

Facts:

 By virtue of a Cadastral Survey, the CFI of Cebu granted Dignos two lots and divide such
lots into four equal shares to the Dignos.
 The heirs of Tito Dignos was awarded ¼ share in the two lots and consequently, sold the
entire two lots to Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) evidenced by an Extrajudicial
settlement and Sale, however without the knowledge of the remaining Dignos. Such sale
was registered under Act No. 3344
 Late, the successor-in-interest of CAA, Mactan Cebu International Airport Authrority
(MCIAA) erected a security fence around the subject property and relocated a number of
families, who were living in the airport perimeter, to a portion of the said lot.
 Respondents, the Dignos, asked the agents of MCIAA to stop giving 3rd persons
permission to occupy the lots but was ignored. Hence, they filed a complaint for quieting
of title against MCIAA before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City. Respondents alleged that the
petitioner nor its predecessor-in-interest had given them any written notice of its
acquisition of the ¼ share of Tito Dignos.
 Petitioner contended that respondents' action was barred by estoppel and laches.|
 The RTC ruled in favor of the Dignos and the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Issue: Whether or not registration under Act. No. 3344 is a constructive notice.

Rule:

No. The Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of the lots to CAA cannot operate as a
constructive notice as it was erroneously registered under Act No. 3344, a law governing the
recording of instruments or deeds relating to real estate which are not registered under the
Torrens system. The subject lots being registered, the trial court found, the registration of the
deed should have been made under Act No. 496, under the land registration act. The registration
of the deed under Act No. 3344 did not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.

However, the Court ruled the sale between the heirs of Tito Dignos is valid but only to
the extent of the share of the heirs of Tito Dignos and that is 1/4 undivided share of the two lots.

Hence, the petition was denied.

Guaranteed Homes, Inc. vs Valdez

Facts:

 A parcel of land was covered by the Original Certificate of Title No. 404 under the name
of Pablo. The respondents in this case are heirs of Pablo. They filed a complaint against
petitioner seeking reconveyance of the subject property.
 Respondent presented a document wherein Cipriano declared himself as the only heir of
Pablo and confirmed all sales in relation to OCT No. 404, including the alleged sale to
spouses Rodolfo.
 They alleged that Pablo was actually survived by four children, aside from Cipriano.
 Then, the TCT of Cipiriano was cancelled and another TCT was issued in the name of the
Spouses Rodolfo.
 The Spouses Rodlofo sold the subject property to petitioner and a new transfer certificate
of title was issued in favor of the petitioner and cancelling the previous TCT.
 Petitioner filed for the motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause
of action as it is an innocent purchaser for value as it only relied on the clean title of the
spouses Rodolfo.
 The RTC granted the motion to dismiss by the petitioner, however the CA reversed the
trial court’s order.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent did not state a cause of action against petitioner

Rule:
Yes. The complaint did not allege any defect with transfer certificate of title in the
name of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioner's predecessors-in-interest, or any
circumstance to show that petitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would compel
petitioner to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo. It is basic that a person
dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on the title of his
predecessor-in-interest. The purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens
title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect. If the rule were otherwise, the
effectiveness and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to
insure would entirely be futile and nugatory.

Rabaja Ranch Development Corp. vs AFP

Facts:

 Petitioner is a domestic corporation and a holder of transfer certificate of title covering a

subject property in Oriental Mindoro. On the other hand, respondent is a government
corporation and a holder of transfer certificate of title which covers the same subject
property of petitioner.
 Hence, petitioner filed a complaint for quieting of title before the RTC.
 Petitioner claimed that a free patent was issued in the name of Jose of the subject
property and an original certificate of title was issued under his name. Then, Jose sold the
property to Spouses Veloso who in turn sold it to petitioner and new transfer certificate of
title was issued in its name.
 Respondent, on the other hand, stated that a homestead patent was issued in the name of
Charles and was then registered in his name. He sold the property to JMC who mortgaged
the property to obtain a loan, however it was not able to pay such loan. Hence, it was
foreclosed. The respondent, being the highest bidder in the public auction, was able to
acquire the said property.
 RTC ruled in favor of petitioner because it found that there was no record in the Bureau
of Lands that Charles was a homestead applicant or grantee. Hence, the trial court ruled
that Charles’ homestead patent was fraudulent. On the other hand, the CA reversed and
set aside the decision of the RTC because Charle’s homestead patent was registered
earlier than Jose’s free patent.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner has a better right over the subject property.

Rule:

No. As a general rule, no valid certificate of title can be issued from a void certificate of
title unless an innocent purchaser of value had intervened. This is so in order to protect innocent
purchasers for value.
In the case at bar, the Court ruled that respondent is an innocent purchaser in good faith
and for value. Thus, as far as respondent is concerned, the transfer certificate of title, shown to it
by JMC, was free from any flaw or defect that could give rise to any doubt that it was fake and
spurious, or that it was derived from a fake or spurious Homestead Patent. Likewise, respondent
was not under any obligation to make an inquiry beyond the TCT itself.

A Homestead Patent once registered becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title. Since

Respondent's transfer certificate of title was first registered in good faith under the Torrens
system than the petitioner, respondent had a better right. Hence, the petition was denied.

Concepion vs Concepcion

Facts:

 All the parties in this case are descendants of the spouses Regino and Concepcion. The
spouses had acquired properties in their lifetime. Upon the death of the wife, she left a
will disposing her paraphernal and conjugal properties.
 As the will was allowed probate, this court dismissed the proceedings because Jesus, one
of the son of the spouses, failed to perform his duties.
 Hence, Jose, one of the children of the spouses, filed for the partition against his six
brothers and sister before the CFI of Cebu.
 A decision was rendered declaring plaintiff’s share and ordering the other siblings to
contribute proportionately to the completion of plaintiff’s legitime.
 The decision became final and executory, since no appeal was taken.
 Jose tried to register the Zulueta property in the Register of Deeds by presenting the Deed
of Conveyance, but he was required to surrender the owner’s copy of the transfer
certificate of title, which title was in the possession of the petitioners. Despite the
demands, petitioners refused to deliver the title.
 Hence, Jose filed with the RTC of Cebu City, as a land registration court, a petition for
cancellation of the said title.
 A decision was rendered ordering the petitioners to surrender the original copy of the
title. On appeal, the CA dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
 The petitioners contend that the RTC had no authority to order the surrender of the title
because it was given to them by their ascendants as indicated in the will.

Issue: Whether or not RTC as a land registration court had jurisdiction on the present case?

Rule:

Yes. The Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), as a Land Registration
Court,can decide cases in ordinary civil actions, since the Court of First Instance is at the same
time courts of general jurisdiction.
In order to avoid multiplicity of suits, registration proceedings haven been simplified
giving the regional trial courts the authority to determine all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions.

However, the Court ruled that there is nothing in the decision of said court which
authorizes the surrender and/or delivery of the title covering the Zulueta property. It merely
required the defendants therein to "contribute proportionately to the completion of the plaintiff's
legitime.”

Hence, the petition was granted.

Castilo vs Escutin

Facts:

 Petitioner is a judgment creditor of Racquel. As she was searching for properties to

satisfy the judgment on her favor, she discovered that Racquel and her mother and sister
co-owned Lot in Batangas.
 She also came to know that the lot was covered by a tax declaration in the name of
Racquel and her mother and sister. However, it was not covered by a certificate of title.
 Hence, petitioner levied on the subject property and bought Racquel’s 1/3 share of the lot.
She was issued a tax declaration no. indicating that she owned 5000 square meters of the
lot.
 However, the tax declaration was cancelled as the subject lot was part of another parcel
of land owned by Catigbac and such lot, including the property of petitioner, was sold to
Summit Realty as evidenced in the TCT of Catigbac
 The TCT was cancelled and new TCT was issued in the name of Summer Realty.
 Such facts led petitioner to file a complaint before the office of the ombudsman charging
several public officers and two private individuals.
 Petitioner pointed out several irregularities in the circumstances surrounding the alleged
sale of Lot 1-B to Summit Realty.
 The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. On appeal,
the CA affirmed the decision of the office of the ombudsman.
 Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner had a better right over the property.

Rule:

No. the Court clarified that a title is different from a certificate of title. Title is the
foundation of ownership of property. Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a mere evidence of
ownership; it is not the title to the land itself. Under the Torrens system, a certificate of title may
be an Original Certificate of Title, which constitutes a true copy of the decree of registration; or a
Transfer Certificate of Title, issued subsequent to the original registration.
In the case at bar, between Catigbac's title, covered by a certificate of title, and
petitioner's title, evidenced only by a tax declaration, the former is evidently far superior and is,
in the absence of any other certificate of title to the same property, conclusive and indefeasible as
to Catigbac's ownership of Lot 1-B.

Catigbac's certificate of title is binding upon the whole world, including respondent public
officers and even petitioner herself. Time and again, the Court has ruled that tax declarations and
corresponding tax receipts cannot be used to prove title to or ownership of a real property
inasmuch as they are not conclusive evidence of the same. Petitioner acquired her title to the
5,000 square meter property from Raquel, her judgment debtor who, it is important to note,
likewise only had a tax declaration to evidence her title.

Since Summit Realty had already acquired a certificate of title in its name over Lot 1-B,
which constitutes conclusive and indefeasible evidence of its ownership of the said property, it
cannot be collaterally attacked in the administrative and preliminary investigations conducted by
the office of the Ombudsman for Luzon.

Hence, Petition was denied.