Land Registration Law

download Land Registration Law

of 66

Transcript of Land Registration Law

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    1/66

    AN UPDATE ON THE LAW

    LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

    ATTY LINDA L. MALENAB-HORNILLA

    Undersecretary, Department of Justice

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    2/66

    ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND

    UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

    Private lands may be brought under theoperation of the Torrens System LandRegistration thru: (1) ordinary or voluntary

    land registration proceedings under Act No.496 and Sections 14 to 33 of P. D. No. 1529,and under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141, asamended, otherwise known as the Public Land

    Act, (2) compulsory proceedings under ActNo. 2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Actof 1913, and (3) Sections 35 to 38 of P. D. No.1529. (cadastral)

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    3/66

    ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND

    UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

    Public lands granted by way ofhomestead,sales or free patent under the Public Land Actare likewise brought under the Torrens System

    upon registration of the patent and issuance ofthe corresponding certificate of title by theRegister of Deeds. Registration of such landsunder the Torrens System is automatic andcompulsory. The same could be said of an

    emancipation patent issued by the Departmentof Agrarian Reform when such patent covers anunregistered private agricultural land devoted torice and corn, by virtue of P. D. No. 266.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    4/66

    Who applies?

    In an ordinary land registration proceedingsunder Act 496 and Sections 14-33, P. D. No.1529, only those who claim to own the landin fee simple may apply, i.e., those whoacquired ownership of the land by titulo real(royal grant), titulo de composicion con el estado(adjustment title), titulo de concession especial(special grant), titulo de compra (title by

    purchase during the Spanish Colonial Period, orthru the different forms of accession under theCivil Code and special laws, like accretion,avulsion, abandonment of river bed, formation of

    lands in non navigable rivers and reclamation.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    5/66

    ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND

    UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

    the use of Spanish titles as evidence in

    land registration proceedings is proscribed

    by P. D. No. 892 as February 16, 1976

    Spanish titles are now hard to find and if

    there is any it would probably be of doubtfulgenuineness or validity.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    6/66

    ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND

    UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

    Most, if not all, ordinary applications for land registrationis based on possession and occupation, tax declarationand tax realty receipts, and nothing more. Taxdeclaration and realty tax receipts are not evidence of a

    grant of land from the State.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that they arenot conclusive evidence of ownership. Nevertheless theSupreme Court has also consistently held that they aregood indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.[Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos, 470 SCRA 533 (January 23,2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    7/66

    IMPERFECT/INCOMPLETE

    TITLE

    The title to the land is imperfect or incomplete,invoke Section 48(b) of C. A. no. 141, asamended, otherwise known as the Public Land

    Act, which provides:

    citizens of the Philippines, occupying the landsof the public domain or claiming to own suchlands or an interest therein, but whose title havenot been perfected or completed, may apply tothe Court of First Instance of the province wherethe land is located for confirmation of theirclaims and the issuance of a certificate of titleunder the Land Registration Act

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    8/66

    Judicial confirmation or legalization

    of imperfect or incomplete title

    This is referred to as judicial confirmation

    or legalization of imperfect or incompletetitle to public agricultural lands under

    Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.

    it requires the concurrence of the following

    elements, to wit;

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    9/66

    Judicial confirmation or legalization of

    imperfect or incomplete title

    The applicant must be a Filipino citizen. This is inkeeping with the provision of Section 2, Article XIIof the 1987 Constitution which limits theacquisition and enjoyment of our naturalresources to Filipino citizens. However, in

    Director of Lands vs. Lapena, the Supreme Courtheld that there is nothing to prevent a foreignnational from applying for judicial confirmation ofthe imperfect title to a tract of land that hepurchased while he was still a Filipino from onewho had been in possession and occupation ofthe land for the period and to the mannerprescribed by Section 48(b) of the Public Land

    Act, for then the land has ceased to be public

    land.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    10/66

    Judicial confirmation or legalization

    of imperfect or incomplete title

    a private corporation may file anapplication for judicial confirmation ofimperfect title under Section 48(b) of the

    Public Land Act for the reason thatalienable and disposable public land heldby a possessor, personally or through hispredecessor-in-interest, openly

    continuously and exclusively for theprescribed statutory period is converted toprivate property by mere lapse or

    completion of said period, ipso jure.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    11/66

    Judicial confirmation or legalization

    of imperfect or incomplete title

    The proceedings would not originally convert

    the land from public to private land but only

    confirm such a conversion already affectedby operation of law from the moment the

    required period of possession became

    complete. [Director of Lands vs. AcmePlywood and Veneer Corp. & IAC, 146

    SCRA 509.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    12/66

    Judicial confirmation or legalization

    of imperfect or incomplete title

    PERIOD AND CHARACTER OF

    POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION

    The applicant has been in open, continuous,

    exclusive and notorious possession under

    a bona fide claim of acquisition ofownership since June 12, 1945.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    13/66

    Judicial confirmation or legalization

    of imperfect or incomplete title

    The area applied for shall not exceed 144hectares.

    The land has been classified as alienable

    and disposable. The application must be filed not later than

    December 31, 2020. [See also Republic vs.

    Estonilo, 476 SCRA 265 (November 25,2005); Republic vs. Enciso, 474 SCRA 700(November 11, 2005); Carlos vs. Republic,468 SCRA 709, (August 31, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    14/66

    CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS

    THE TITLE OF OWNERSHIP ON THE LAND ISVESTED UPON THE OWNER UPON EXPIRATION OFTHE PERIOD TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OR

    ADJUDICATION BY THE CADASTRAL COURT

    The land had become a registered property which couldnot be acquired by adverse possession and, therefore,beyond the jurisdiction of the Land Management Bureau,to subject it to a free patent. The free patent issued bythe DENR and the certificate of the title issued by the

    Register of Deeds are null and void. [Calimpong vs.Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441 (March 31,2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5 SCRA 240]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    15/66

    CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS

    The President of the Philippines or his alter ego,the Director of Lands, has no authority to grant afree patent for land that has ceased to be apublic land and has passed to privateownership; and a title so issued is null and void.The nullity arises not from the fraud or deceit,but from the fact that the land is not under the

    jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. [Calimpong

    vs. Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441(March 31, 2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5SCRA 240]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    16/66

    REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN

    LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

    1. PETITION TO REVIEW OR REOPEN A

    DECREE OF REGISTRATION

    Section 38 of Act 496 recognizes the

    right of a person deprived of land to

    institute an action to reopen or revise the

    decree of registration obtained by actual

    fraud.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    17/66

    REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN

    LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

    Fraud is two kinds: actual or constructive.

    Actual or positive fraud proceeds from anintentional deception practiced by means of the

    misrepresentation or concealment of a materialfact.

    Constructive fraud is construed as a fraudbecause of its detrimental effect on public

    interests and public or private confidence, eventhough the act is not done with an actual designto commit positive fraud or injury upon otherpersons

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    18/66

    REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN

    LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

    Prescription does not run against the State

    and the latter may still bring an action, even

    after the lapse of one year, for the

    reversion of the land to the public domain,

    of land which have been fraudulently

    granted to private individuals. [Republic vs.Guerrero, 485 SCRA 424 (March 28,

    2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    19/66

    REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN

    LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

    2. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE - In action

    for reconveyance, a decree of registration is

    respected as incontrovertible. What is soughtinstead is the transfer of the property or its title

    which has been wrongfully or erroneously

    registered in another person's name, to its

    rightful or legal owner, or to one who has abetter right. [Naval vs. CA, 483 SCRA 102

    (February 22, 2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    20/66

    REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN

    LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

    An action for reconveyance does not prescribedwhen the plaintiff is in possession of the land tobe reconveyed. [Naval vs. CA, 483 SCRA 102(February 22, 2006); see also Cuizon vs.Remoto, 472 SCRA 274 (October 11, 2005)]

    The fraudulent registration of a parcel holds theperson in whose name the land is registered asa mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefitof the person from whom the property comes.Registration alone without good faith is notsufficient. Good faith must concur withregistration for such prior right to be enforceable.[Portes, Sr. vs. Arcala, 468 SCRA 343 9august30, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    21/66

    PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,

    CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY

    OF A TORRENS TITLE

    T.C.T. No. M-19968 and T.C.T. No. 19973,being genuine and valid, on their face, areincontrovertible, indefeasible and conclusiveagainst the petitioners and the whole world.Thus, the unregistered deed of sale and thesubdivision contract upon which petitioners rely,cannot prevail over the certificate of title in thename of Cruz. To hold otherwise is to defeat the

    primary object of the Torrens System which is tomake the Torrens title indefeasible and validagainst the whole world. [Santos vs. Cruz, 484SCRA 66 (March 3, 2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    22/66

    EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF

    INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE

    A title emanating from a free patent which

    was secured through fraud and

    misrepresentation does not become

    indefeasible, precisely because the patentfrom whence the title sprung is itself void

    and of no effect whatsoever. [Heirs of

    Carlos Alcaraz vs. Republic 464 SCRA280 (July 28, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    23/66

    PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,

    CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY

    OF A TORRENS TITLE

    If a property covered by a Torrens title is

    involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of

    such title should be given due weight, and in the

    absence of strong compelling evidence to thecontrary, the holder thereof should be

    considered the owner of the property in

    controversy until his title is nullified or modified in

    an appropriate ordinary action. [Pacioles, Jr.vs. Chuatoco-Ching, 466 SCRA 90 (August 9,

    2005)]

    IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF TORRENS

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    24/66

    IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF TORRENS

    TITLE

    It is not disputed that at the core of thiscontroversy is a parcel of land registered underthe Torrens system. In a long line of cases, wehave consistently ruled that lands covered by atitle cannot be acquired by prescription or byadverse possession. So it is that in NataliaRealty Corp. vs. Vallez, et al., we held that aclaim of acquisitive prescription is baseless

    when the land involved is a registered landbecause of Article 1126 of the Civil Code andSection 47 of P.D. No. 1529. [Ragudo vs.Fabella Estate tenants Association, Inc., 466

    SCRA 136(August 9, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    25/66

    PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,

    CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY

    OF A TORRENS TITLE

    But a party's alleged possession of atransfer certificate of title and actualpossession of subject land, although

    strong proof of ownership, are notnecessarily conclusive where the assertionof the proprietary rights is founded on adubious claim of ownership. [Estate of

    Salvador Serra vs. Heirs of PrimitivoHernaez, 466 SRCA 120 (August 9, 2005);see also Bejoc vs. Cabreros, 464 SCRA 78(July 22, 2005)]

    A VOID TITLE MAYBE THE SOURCE OF A VALID

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    26/66

    A VOID TITLE MAYBE THE SOURCE OF A VALID

    TITLE IN THE HANDS OF AN INNOCENT

    PURCHASER FOR VALUE If the evidence show that the free patent and

    O.C.T. issued to petitioners' predecessors-in-interest is valid and/or Lot No. 89 is not insideT.C.T. No. 257152, then judgment should berendered in favor of petitioners; and whether thelatter acted in good faith or bad faith, will nolonger be a decisive issue in the case. On theother hand, if the title of petitioners'

    predecessors-in -interest is declared void, thedefense of good faith may still be available topetitioners' who claim to be purchasers in goodfaith and for value. [Tan vs. Dela Vega, 484

    SCRA 538 (March 10, 2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    27/66

    A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO

    COLLATERAL ATTACK

    It is well settled that the Torrens title cannot becollaterally attacked; the issue on the validity oftitle, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issuedcan only be raised in an action expresslyinstituted for the purpose. It has been invariablystated that the real purpose of the TorrensSystem is to quiet title to land to stop forever anyquestion as to its legality. Once a title is

    registered, the owner may rest secure, withoutthe necessity of waiting in the portals of thecourt, or sitting in the mirador a su casa toavoid the possibility of losing his hand.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    28/66

    A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT

    TO COLLATERAL ATTACK

    Respondents application for registration of a parcel ofland already covered by a Torrens title is actually acollateral attack against petitioners title, not permittedunder the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.

    A decree of registration that has become final shall bedeemed conclusive not only on the questions actuallycontested and determined, but also upon matters thatmight be litigated or decided in the land registration

    proceedings. Thus, it is too late for the respondents toquestion petitioners titles considering that the certificatesof title issued to the latter have become incontrovertibleafter the lapse of one (1) year from the date ofregistration. [Fil-estate Management, Inc. Supra]

    POSSESSION OF TITLED PROPERTY ADVERSE

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    29/66

    POSSESSION OF TITLED PROPERTY ADVERSE

    TO REGISTERD OWNER IS NECESSARILY

    TAINTED WITH BAD FAITH

    Good faith consists in the belief of the builderthat the land he is building on is his and hisignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. In theinstant case, when the verification survey report

    came to the petitioners knowledge, their goodfaith ceased. The survey report is a profession ofencroachment of respondents titled property. Itis doctrinal in land registration law that

    possession of titled property adverse to theregistered owner is necessarily tainted with badfaith [Cajayon vs. Batuyong, 482 SCRA 461(February 16, 2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    30/66

    CONTINUING, SPECIAL AND LIMITED JURISDICTION OF

    THE LAND REGISTRATION COURT OVER

    PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL

    REGISTRATION OF TITLE

    The Regional Trial Court has the authority to act,not only on the application for original registrationof title to land, but also on all petitions filed afteroriginal registration of title. The Court of Appeals,

    therefore, erred on ruling that the Regional TrialCourt, Branch 255, Las Pinas City, has no

    jurisdiction over LRC Case No. M-228 on theground that the land subject to respondents

    application for registration was already registeredin the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas City. [Fil-Estate Management, Inc. vs. Trono, 482 SCRA578(February 17, 2006)]

    REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    31/66

    REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND

    NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE

    LANDS; HOMESTEAD

    Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands ofthe public domain belong to State, andthose lands not appearing to be clearly

    within private ownership are presumed tobelong to the state. Lands of the publicdomain are classified into agricultural,forest or timber, mineral lands and national

    parks. Alienable and disposable lands ofthe public domain shall be limited toagricultural lands.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    32/66

    REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND

    NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE LANDS;

    HOMESTEAD

    C. A. No. 141 (1936) or the Public Land

    Act, as amended by P.D. 1073 (1977),

    remains to be the general law governing

    the classification and disposition ofalienable lands of the public domain It

    enumerates the different modes of

    acquisition of these lands and prescribesthe terms and conditions to enable private

    persons to perfect their title to them.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    33/66

    HOMESTEAD A homestead patent is one of the modes to acquire title

    to public lands suitable for agricultural purposes. Underthe Public Land Act, a homestead patent is one issuedto any citizen of this country, 18 years of age or head offamily, and who is not the owner of more than 24hectares of land in the country. To be qualified, theapplicant must show that he has resided continuouslyfor at least one (1) year in the municipality where theland is situated and must have cultivated at least one-fifth of the land applied for. [Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos,479 SCRA 533 (January 23, 2006)]

    A homestead patent once registered under the LandRegistration Act becomes as indefeasible as a Torrenstitle. [Portes Sr. vs. Arcala, Supra]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    34/66

    FOREST LAND

    Public forest lands or forest reserves, unlessdeclassified and released by positive act of theGovernment so that they may form part of thedisposable lands of the public domain, are not

    capable of private appropriation. The rules onconfirmation of imperfect title do not apply.Forests, in the context of both the Public Land

    Act and the Constitution classifying lands of thepublic domain into agricultural, forest or timber,

    mineral lands and national parks, do notnecessarily refer to a large tract of wooded landor an expense covered by dense growth of treesor underbrush. (Republic vs. Naguiat, 479SCRA 585 (January 24, 2006)

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    35/66

    FORESHORE LAND

    Foreshore land has been defined as that which liesbetween the high and low watermarks, and that is

    alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the

    tide. In other words, it is that strip of land between

    high and low water, the land left dry by the flux andre-flux of the tide. In the present case, although

    corners 3 and 4 of lot 2833 have been shown to

    adjoin the sea, they have not been proven to be

    covered by water during high tide. Hence, theproperty cannot be considered foreshore land.

    [Republic vs. Lensico, 466 SCRA 361 (August 9,

    2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    36/66

    PROBATIVE VALUE OF A TAX

    DECLARATION

    Time and again, we have held that

    although tax declarations or realty tax

    payments are not conclusive evidence of

    ownership, nevertheless, they are goodindicia of possession in the context of an

    owner, for no one is in his right mind would

    be paying taxes for a property that is not inhis actual or at least constructive

    possession. (Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos,

    479 SCRA 533 (Jan. 23, 2006)

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    37/66

    Quieting of Title

    The settled rule is that an action for quieting of title isimprescriptible, as in the instant case, where the personseeking relief is in the possession of the disputedproperty. A person in actual possession of a piece of

    land under claim of ownership may wait until hispossession is disturbed or his title is attacked beforetaking any step to vindicate his right, and that theundisturbed possession gives him the continuing right toseek the aid of the Court of Equity to ascertain and

    determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third partyand its effect on his title.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    38/66

    Payment of taxes

    Only a positive and categorical assertion of theirsupposed rights against petitioners would rule out theapplication of laches. It means taking the initiative byinstituting means to wrest possession. Respondents

    payment of taxes alone, without possession, couldhardly be considered as an exercise of ownership. Whatstands out is their overwhelming passivity by allowingpetitioners to exercise acts of ownership and to enjoy thefruits of the litigated lot for 32 years without any

    interference. (Rumarate vs. Hernandez, 487 SCRA 317[April 18, 2006])

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    39/66

    Effective Possession

    The statement of an immediate neighbor

    of a disputed property as to who he

    observed was in effective possession of

    the same commands great weight and

    respect. (Buduhan vs. Pakurao, 483

    SCRA 116 (Feb. 22, 2006)]

    JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF LOST

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    40/66

    JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF LOST

    OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE

    OF TITLE

    Jurisprudence dictates that the

    jurisdictional requirements must becomplied with before the court can act on

    the petition and grant the reconstitution

    of title prayed for.

    The petitioner to prove compliance with

    the following requirements:

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    41/66

    NOTICE OF PETITION

    Publication

    The notice of petition be published at theexpense of the petitioner twice in

    successive issues in the Official Gazette,and posted in the main entrance of theprovincial building and the municipalbuilding of the municipality or city in whichthe land is located at least thirty (30) daysprior to the date of hearing

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    42/66

    Jurisdictional Requirements

    The notice must state the number of the lost or

    destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name

    of the registered owner, the name of the

    occupants and persons in possession of theproperty, the owner of adjoining properties and

    all other interested parties, the location, area,

    and boundaries of the property ad the date on

    which all persons having any interest thereinmust appear and file their claim or objection to

    the petition.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    43/66

    Jurisdictional Requirements

    The notice must state the number of the lost or

    destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name

    of the registered owner, the name of the

    occupants and persons in possession of theproperty, the owner of adjoining properties and

    all other interested parties, the location, area,

    and boundaries of the property ad the date on

    which all persons having any interest thereinmust appear and file their claim or objection to

    the petition.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    44/66

    Jurisdictional Requirements

    A copy of the notice must also be sent, by

    registered mail or otherwise, at the

    expense of the petitioner, to every person

    named (i.e. the occupants or persons inpossession of the property, the owner of

    adjoining properties and al other interested

    parties whose address is known, at least30 days prior to the date of the hearing;

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    45/66

    Jurisdictional Requirements

    At the hearing, the petitioner must submit

    proof of publication, posting and service of

    notice as directed by the court.

    The non-observance of the requirement

    invalidates the reconstitution

    proceedings in the trial court.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    46/66

    Jurisdictional Requirements

    The purposes of the stringent and mandatorycharacter of the legal requirements ofpublication, posting and mailing are tosafeguard against spurious and unfounded

    land ownership claim, to apprise all interestedparties of the existence of such action and givethem enough time to intervene in theproceeding. Substantial compliance with the

    jurisdictional requirements is not enough.[Govt of the Phil. Vs. Aballe, 435 SCRA 308(Mar 24, 2006)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    47/66

    Judicial Reconstitution

    In case the reconstitution is to be made

    exclusively from source enumerated in Section 2

    (f), (any other doc) the petition shall beaccompanied by a plan and technical description

    of the property duly approved by the General

    Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy

    of the description taken from the prior certificateof title covering the same property. [Cabello vs.

    Republic, 467 SCRA 330 (Aug. 18, 2005)]

    PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPLACEMENT OF A LOST

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    48/66

    PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPLACEMENT OF A LOST

    OWNERS DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AND

    RECONSTITUTION OF LOST ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF

    TITLE ON FILE WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

    The applicable law in applying for a replacementof and owners duplicate certificate of title is P.D.1529 (Section 109); R.A. No. 26 applies only incases of reconstitution of lost original certificate

    on file with the Register of Deeds. When the reconstituted certificate is void, the

    court that rendered the decision has nojurisdiction.

    No valid transfer certificate of title can issuefrom a void T.C.T., unless an innocent purchaserfor value had intervened.

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    49/66

    JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION

    As a rule, the annotation of an affidavit of loss

    on a reconstituted certificate might be defective

    and inferior to an already existing certificate of

    title. The remedy to nullify an order granting

    reconstitution is a petition for annulment under

    Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. [Eastworld Motor

    Industries Corp. vs. Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA420 (Dec. 16, 2005)]

    the only issues to be resolved In a petition for issuance

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    50/66

    the only issues to be resolved In a petition for issuance

    of a second owners duplicate copy of the certificate of

    title in replacement of a lost one

    Whether o not the original owners

    duplicate copy of the certificate of title

    had indeed been lost.

    Whether the petitioner seeking the

    issuance of a new owners duplicate title

    is the registered owner or anotherperson-in-interest.

    UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, REGISTRATION IS

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    51/66

    ,

    THE OPERATIVE ACT THAT AFFECTS AND CONVEYS

    THE LAND INSOFAR AS THIRD PERSONS ARE

    CONCERNED

    Respondents contention that theunregistered buyers rights over theproperty is superior to that of the judgment

    obligor has not basis. The fact that thecontracts to buy and sell are unregisteredand the properties in question are still inthe name of the respondent underline the

    fact that the sales are not absolute. [DSMConstruction and Development Corp. vs.CA, 478 SCRA 618 (Dec. 19, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    52/66

    IMMUNITY OF A TORRENS TITLE FROM

    COLLATERAL ATTACK

    An action is deemed as an attack on a titlewhen the object of the action or proceeding is tonullify the title, and thus challenge the judgmentpursuant to which the title is decreed. A third

    party complaint is in the nature of an originalcomplaint. The third party complaint for thecancellation of transfer certificate of title, being inthe nature of an original complaint forcancellation of transfer certificate of title, it

    therefore constitutes a direct attack of suchTCT. [Sarmiento vs. CA, 479 SCRA 99, (Sept.16, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    53/66

    IMMUNITY OF A TORRENS TITLE FROM

    COLLATERAL ATTACK

    An action is deemed as an attack on a title whenthe object of the action or proceeding is to nullifythe title, and thus challenge the judgmentpursuant to which the title is decreed.

    A third party complaint is in the nature of anoriginal complaint. The third party complaint forthe cancellation of transfer certificate of title,being in the nature of an original complaint forcancellation of transfer certificate of title, it

    therefore constitutes a direct attack of suchTCT. [Sarmiento vs. CA, 479 SCRA 99, (Sept.16, 2005)]

    MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    54/66

    MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE

    TORRENS SYSTEM

    When dealing with land that is registered andtitled, buyers are not required by law to inquirefurther than what the Torrens certificateindicates on its face.

    The presence of anything that excites orarouses suspicion should then prompt the buyerto look beyond the vendors certificate andinvestigate the title appearing on the face of that

    certificate. [Domingo vs. Reed, 477 SCRA 227,(Dec. 9, 2005); Planters Development Bank vs.Garcia, 477 SCRA 185 (Dec. 9, 2005)]

    MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    55/66

    MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE

    TORRENS SYSTEM

    However, this rule does not apply

    to banks. Banks are required to

    exercise more care and prudence

    than private individuals in dealingeven with registered properties

    for their business is affected with

    public interest. (Keppel BankPhilippines, Inc. vs. Adao, 473 SCRA 372

    (Oct. 19, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    56/66

    ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF

    CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

    The LRA properly ruled that thereconstitution officer should have confinedhimself to the owner's duplicate certificate

    of title prior to the reconstitution. Section 3of Republic Act No. 26 clearly provides:Section 3: Transfer certificates of titlesshall be reconstituted from such of the

    sources hereunder enumerated as may beavailable in the following order (a) theowner's duplicate of the certificate of title."

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    57/66

    ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF

    CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

    Since respondents' source of reconstitution isthe owner's duplicate certificate of title, there isno need for the reconstituting officer to requirethe submission of the plan, much less deny the

    petition on the ground that the submitted planappears to be spurious. By enumerating thehierarchy of sources to be used for thereconstitution, it is the intent of the law to give

    more weight and preference to the owner'sduplicate certificate of title over the otherenumerated sources."

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    58/66

    ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF

    CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

    "The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title isauthentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while petitioners'title is sham and spurious, as affirmed by the twodivisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive beforethis Court."

    "In reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound todetermine from the evidence submitted which betweenor among the titles is genuine and existing to enable it todecide whether to deny or approved the petition. Without

    such authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agencyclothed only with mechanical powers." [Manotok IV vs.Heirs of Homer Barque, 477 SCRA 339 (December 12,2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    59/66

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY

    JUSTICE CARPIO

    The majority opinion patently violates Section 48

    of P.D. No. 1529 which expressly states that a

    Torrens title cannot be canceled except in a

    direct proceeding in accordance with law. Onlythe proper trial court in an action directly

    attacking the validity of a Torrens title can cancel

    a Torrens title after trial on the merits.

    The reconstitution of a certificate of title is farfrom being a ministerial act.

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    60/66

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

    BY JUSTICE CARPIO

    In accordance with paragraph 8 of LRA Circular No. 13,the reconstituting officer or the register of deeds shallissue an order of reconstitution only after appropriateverification which means that he must be convinced thatthe certificate of title is genuine and not spurious. Thus,the reconstituting officer must go beyond the owners co-owner's duplicate certificate of title to determine whetherthe title is genuine. The process of verification allows thereconstituting officer to counter check with other

    government agencies to determine the validity of the titleto be reconstituted.

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    61/66

    BY JUSTICE CARPIO

    The LRA has jurisdiction to review on appealdecisions on petitions for reconstitution.However, it is not within its powers and functionsto declare a title void. The LRA, in its 24 June

    1998 Resolution, recognized that only theRegional Trial Court could declare a titlefraudulently reconstituted. Clearly, LRA's

    jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative

    reconstitution does not include the power todeclare a title sham so spurious or to order thecancellation of a certificate title.

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    62/66

    BY JUSTICE CARPIO

    The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when itdeclared that Manotok, et. al's title is shamand spurious. The LRA itself

    acknowledged that only the RTC coulddeclare a title fraudulently reconstituted.By ruling on the validity of Manotok et al'stitle, the LRA assumed the function of the

    RTC. The LRA also preempted whateverdecision the RTC may render on thematter.

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    63/66

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

    BY JUSTICE CARPIO

    Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted titlewhich, by itself, does not determine or resolvethe ownership of land covered by the lost ordestroyed title. The reconstitution of a title is

    simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicatecertificate of title in its original form andcondition. It does not determine or resolve theownership of land covered by the lost or

    destroyed title. A reconstituted title, like theoriginal certificate of title, by itself does not vestownership of the land or estate covered thereby.

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    64/66

    DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED

    BY JUSTICE CARPIO

    The determination of the authenticity of documents andveracity of the claims of both parties requires a trial onthe merits. The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when itmade a conclusive finding on the validity of the titles ofthe parties. Such function falls under the exclusive

    original jurisdiction of the RTC under Section 19 of BP.Blg. 129. The Court of Appeals should not have resolvedthe factual issues by adopting as its own the LRA'sfinding. The Court accords respect, if not finality, tofactual findings of an administrative body. However, thisrule does not apply when the administrative body has no

    jurisdiction to make a conclusive factual findingparticularly when the findings might conflict with findingsof the tribunal or agency which has jurisdiction on thematter. [Monotok IV vs. Heirs of Homer Barque, Supra]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    65/66

    ADVERSE CLAIMS

    The general rule is that a person dealing withregistered land is not required to go behind theregister to determine the condition of theproperty. However, such person is charged with

    notice of the burden on the property which isnoted on the face of the register or certificate oftitle. A person who deals with registered land isbound by the liens and encumbrances including

    adverse claim annotated therein. [NavotasIndustrial Corp. vs. Cruz, 469 SCRA 530(September 12, 2005)]

  • 7/22/2019 Land Registration Law

    66/66

    THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

    HAVE A GOOD DAY