Professional Documents
Culture Documents
31 TO 68 | D 2012
(1) GARCIA V. CA Years later to other persons of another title over the same
lots due to the failure of the register of deeds to cancel
FACTS: On August 9, 1918, a deed of sale for two parcels the title preceding the title issued to Lapuz. This must be
of land, E and G, of the Hacienda Maysilo, located in so considering that Lapus and his interest remained in
Malabon, Rizal and covered by Original Certificate of Title possession of the disputed successors in lots and the rival
No. 983, was executed in favor of Ismael Lapus a bona claimants never possessed the same.
fide occupant thereof. However, it seemed that, contrary The general rule is that in the case of two certificates
to official routine or standard operating procedure, the of title, purporting to include the same land, the earlier
deed of sale was not annotated on OCT No. 983 and that, in date prevail, whether the land comprised in the latter
consequently, that title was apparently not cancelled. certificate be wholly, or only in part, comprised in the
As a result of the registration of that deed of sale, earlier certificate.
Transfer Certificate of 'Title No. 4910 was issued to Lapus In case of voluntary registration of documents, an
for the two parcels of land, E and G, and a Transfer innocent purchaser for value of registered land becomes
Certificate of Title No. 4911 was issued for the remaining the registered owner, and, in contemplation of law the
five lots covered by OCT No. 983 (which embrace an area holder of a certificate of title, the moment he presents
of more than two hundred fifty-eight hectares registered and files a duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the
in the names of more than twenty-six-co-owners). same is entered in the day book and at the same time he
Meanwhile, in 1962, certain. alleged heirs (collectively surrenders or presents the owner's duplicate certificate of
known as the Riveras) of the late Maria de la Concepcion title covering the land sold and pays the registration fees,
Vidal filed a motion in Land Registration Cases Nos. 4429 because what remains to be done lies not within his power
and 4496 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging to perform. The register of deeds is duty bound to
that they were deprived of their participation in the perform it. (See Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil. 196.)
Hacienda Maysilo covered by OCT No. 983 and for other In this case, the deed of sale in favor of Lapus, which
titles and that, since only OCT No. 983 was supposedly was judicially authorized, was entered in the entry book
unencumbered, all the land covered by that title should and a new title was issued to him. As already stated, and
be adjudicated to them. The court granted the motion. It this point should be underscored, the deed of sale in favor
should be stressed that OCT No. 983 appears to have of Lapus contains the notation that it was annotated on
remained uncancelled notwithstanding the sale to Lapus the back of OCT No. 983 (presumably, the original and
of two parcels covered by it and the fact that it had been owner's duplicate thereof).
replaced by TCT Nos. 4910 and 4911.
On June 7, 1963, OCT No. 983 was definitely cancelled
and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 112236 (2) MINGOA V. LRC
was issued to the Riveras. Later, Lots 5 and 7 of the said
title (corresponding to parcels E and G which were sold to FACTS: A deed of donation was executed by Mingoa in
Ismael Lapus in 1918 as stated earlier) were assigned by favor of his children on June 15,1987. The deed was
Bartolome Rivera to Sergio Cruz and Pacifico Garcia and forwarded to the Register of Deeds for registration by
TCT Nos. 112743 and 112742 were issued to Cruz and registered mail on September 09,1988. It was entered in
Garcia, respectively. Thus, two sets of transfer the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds on
certificates of title for Lots E and G or 5 and 7, originally September 20, 1988. But the Register of Deeds suspended
covered by OCT No. 983, were issued, one to the heir of the registration of the donation on the ground that under
Ismael Lapus and another set to the successors-in-interest RA 6657, any disposition of private agricultural lands made
of the Riveras. before June 15,1988 must be registered within three
On October 22, 1964, Garcia subdivided Lot 7 (G) into months from the said date (or BEFORE September 13,
Lots A and B. Garcia retained Lot A and obtained TCT No. 1988) to be valid. But since the instrument was entered in
134958 for it. He assigned Lot B to Antonio Muoz on the primary books only on September 20, 1988, Mingoa is
November 5, 1964. As a consequence of the assignment, 7 days late, according to the LRA.
TCT No. 112742 was cancelled and TCT No. 134957 was Mingoa, on the other hand, claims that the registration
issued to Muoz. In 1965, he mortgaged Lot B to the of the instrument should have on September 09, 1988, or
Associated Banking Corporation to secure a loan of the date when he sent forwarded the instrument to the
P200,000. Register of Deeds.
ISSUE: Whether the 1920 title issued to Lapus and the ISSUE: In registration by registered mail, when should the
titles derived therefrom should prevail over the 1963 title instrument be considered as registered?
issued to the Riveras and the subsequent titles derived
from it. HELD: The date of mailing (September 09, 1988) is
considered as the date of registration.
HELD: The title of Lapus and the titles derived therefrom RA 6657 states that any sale, disposition or transfer of
should be given effect. The title of the Riveras and the possession of private agricultural lands made prior to June
titles springing from it are void. 15, 1988 shall be valid only if it is registered within three
There can be no doubt that Lapus was an innocent months after (or before September 13, 1988).
purchaser for value. He validly transmitted to his So when is an instrument registered? PD 1529 states that
successors-in-interest his indefeasible title or ownership an instrument shall be considered as registered from the
over the disputed lots or parcels of land. That title could time it is noted in the primary books of the Register of
not be nullified or defeated by the issuance forty-three Deeds. It also states that the Rules of Court shall be
NOGRALES | FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | MENDOZA R | FAJARDO | MULI
LAND TITLES | SEC. 31 TO 68 | D 2012
NOGRALES | FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | MENDOZA R | FAJARDO | MULI
LAND TITLES | SEC. 31 TO 68 | D 2012
NOGRALES | FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | MENDOZA R | FAJARDO | MULI
LAND TITLES | SEC. 31 TO 68 | D 2012
property then being sold by Afable, he could not but have (2) W/N Fermin is an innocent purchaser for value.
noticed that Candidos house was in that area; that when
Afable pointed out the 3 lots to them (one big lot and two HELD:
smaller ones), Casimiro could not but have become (1) The sole remedy of the land owner whose property
aware, if not of the actuality, at least of the possibility, has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the
that the smaller contiguous lots appeared to be that in name of another is, after one year from the date of
which his friend was living. At any rate, it is rather the decree, not to set aside the decree, but,
incredulous that Casimiro and his sister had limited respecting the decree as incontrovertible, to bring
themselves to viewing and asking questions about the big an ordinary action for reconveyance, or if the
lot only, completely refraining from inquiring about the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for
two other lots subject of the projected sale, placing value, for damages. The system of registration must
unquestioning reliance on Afables certificate of title. not serve as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter
There were sufficiently strong indications to impel a bad faith. Moreover, the patent was obtained in 1941
closer inquiry into the location and condition of the two and the action was filed in 1943. Actions for fraud
smaller lots embraced in the sale. That inquiry is in truth prescribe in 4 years and. Actions for reconveyance
dictated by common sense, expected of a man of ordinary prescribe in 10 years.
prudence. Indeed, when a man proposed to buy or deal (2) Fermin cannot come within the purview of an
with realty, his first duty is to look and see who is there innocent purchaser. He purchased the property from
upon it, and what his rights are. Capito who did not have a certificate of title issued
A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should in his favor. Jurisprudence holds that where a person
put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that buys land not from the registered owner but from
he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no one whose right to the land has been merely
defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to annotated on the certificate of title, and such
believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of the purchaser merely had his deed of sale annotated on
eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his the certificate of title, he is not considered an
vendors title will not make him an innocent purchaser for innocent purchaser and for value.
value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact
defective
Had that inquiry been made, Candidos adverse claim (7) PNB V. CA
over the two small lots would have immediately been
discovered and the controversy would have died a- FACTS: In 1937 in a cadastral proceeding, Spouses Inigo
borning. The Espiritus failure to undertake such inquiry Bitanga and Rosa Ver obtained an OCT over a property in
precludes their successful invocation of the character of Ilocos Norte. However, 2 years prior to the issuance of the
purchasers in good faith. OCT, Bitanga died; and Ver mortgaged the property in
On the other hand, while the registration of the deed of favor of PNB to secure a P500 loan. The mortgage
sale of Lots No. 3 and 9 under Act No. 3344 could not and document was registered in the books of the RD in 1936,
never operated to bind the land, or third persons, the but the lien was not annotated when the OCT was issued.
bona fides of that purchase by Candidos parents and by Ver defaulted with her obligation with Manila Trading
their predecessor has not at al been put at issue, nor the Company. Thus, said company levied upon her share in the
fact of the Franciscos possession for more than 30 years. property in 1939, which was later on sold at a public
auction, at which the company was the highest bidder. In
1940, Manila Trading Company sold its rights over the
(6) QUINIANO V. CA property to Santiago Sambrano, who secured the
annotation of the sale on the title in 1941.
FACTS: Fabiano and Tomasa Sarmiento were originally the Since Ver defaulted with her obligation with PNB, the
owners of the disputed parcels of land. They had two bank sold at public auction the whole lot that Ver
children: Jose, father of private respondents, and mortgaged. PNB emerged as the highest bidder and
Joaquina, mother of principal petitioner Marta Quinano. consolidated its title over it after expiration of the
The parcels were eventually partitioned and was redemption period. However, the document of
adjudicated to Jose. However, Quinano filed an consolidation was not annotated upon the owner's
application for free patent (1941). She was successful and duplicate certificate of title since Ver failed to surrender
as a result of which an OCT was issued to her. Private it. In 1954, PNB sold the property to Felizardo Reyes, in
respondents were unaware of her machinations. During which a new owner's duplicate certificate of title was
the early part Japanese Occupation, she was able to take issued in favor of the latter.
possession of the land. It was only when some sort of RTC ruled that the mortgage in favor of PNB was not an
peace and order had been restored that private existing lien since it was not annotated in the decree of
respondents were able to file for reconveyance. It was registration; that Felizardo Reyes was not a purchaser for
learned thereafter that Quinano had sold 2 and lots to value and in good faith; and that PNB's and Reyes' titles
Felix Capito and the to Antero Sanchez. Capito over the property are null and void.
transferred his rights to Celedonio Fermin. Not subsequent
certificates of title were issued. ISSUES:
ISSUES: (1) W/N the mortgage in favor of PNB was valid and
(1) W/N reconveyance is availing and W/N the action existing only with respect to 1/2 portion of the
for reconveyance has prescribed. property allegedly belonging to Ver as her share
NOGRALES | FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | MENDOZA R | FAJARDO | MULI
LAND TITLES | SEC. 31 TO 68 | D 2012
in the conjugal partnership from the time the mortgage was executed by Ver.
(2) W/N the mortgage in favor of PNB was no longer Mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to the
subsisting simply because it was not annotated on contracts that are null, void and inexistent.
the face of the OCT in favor of the spouses (4) YES. The intervenor-spouses Lagpacan and Malacas
(3) W/N the heirs of Inigo Bitanga are estopped and acquired their right to the shares of Ver and
barred by laches in claiming their 1/2 undivided Guillermo Bitanga in the same property from MTC,
share of the property as their inheritance from which acquired all the rights, title, interests, and
their father participations which Guillermo Bitanga and Rosa Ver
(4) W/N the acquisition of the other half portion of have or might gave over the property more than 2
the property by intervenor-spouses Lagpacan and years after the decree of registration was entered in
Malacas are valid and regular the name of Bitanga spouses. Thus, since MTC has a
better right over the property than PNB, it follows
HELD: that intervenor-spouses, who obtained their rights
(1) YES. The property belonged to the conjugal from MTC, validly acquired title over the 3/5 share
partnership of Inigo Bitanga and Rosa Ver. Thus, on the property (1/2 coming from Ver, 1/5 from
when Bitanga died, his 1/2 share in the property was Guillermo Bitanga).
transmitted to the heirs (children), and a co-
ownership was established between them and Rosa
Ver. Hence, Ver, by herself alone, could NOT have (8) BERNALES V. IAC
validly mortgaged the whole property to PNB. Only
1/2 of the entire property mortgaged to PNB was (9) SOLIVEL V. FRNACISCO
valid. PNB could not also rely upon a Tax Declaration
in the name of Ver, for it is not a conclusive proof of (10) LLANZO V. ALZONA
ownership and cannot alter the conjugal character of
the property. FACTS: Bernardo Sales and Maria Sales were husband and
(2) YES. Since a clean title was issued in the name of wife. Maria was the registered owner of a certain parcel
spouses Bitanga and Ver in 1937, and PNB did not of land in Cabuyao, Laguna. Until the spouses died, they
contest or move to have it re-opened for a period of lived together with some of their children on the said land
one year, it became incontrovertible. Thus, PNB's and in the house they constructed thereon. Maria died on
failure to claim interest in the property deprived it August 27, 1986 and Bernardo died on January 1, 1997.
from the mortgage. There is no showing that MTC On January 29, 1990, a real estate mortgage contract
had any knowledge or notice of the prior mortgage in was purportedly executed by Maria, who was already
favor of PNB. Thus, MTC acquired the rights of Ver deceased at that time, and Bernardo in favor of
and Bitanga as an innocent purchaser for value and Dominador Alzona. Estela Sales Pelongco, one of the
free from all incumbrances. From the MTC, rights of daughters of Bernardo and Maria, signed as an
Bitanga and Ver passed to Sambrano, and from the instrumental witness to the mortgage contract. Ernesto
latter to intervenor-spouses Lagpacan and Malacas. Alzona was a co-mortgagee of his brother Dominador even
The intervenors merely stepped into the shoes of if his name does not appear on the mortgage contract.
MTC, a prior purchaser in good faith, and thereby The mortgage was subsequently foreclosed for alleged
became entitled to all the defenses available to the failure of the spouses to settle their obligation. The
company, including those arising from the acquisition property was sold in a mortgage sale where Ernesto
of the property in good faith and for value. Alzona was the highest bidder.
PD 1529, Secs 29, 30, 31, and 32 states that after 1 The children of Bernardo and Maria (except for Estela
year, every decree or certificate of title issued shall Sales Pelongco) filed before RTC a complaint for
be incontrovertible. Annulment of the Mortgage and of Action Sale, with
PD 1529, Sec 44 states that every subsequent Reconveyance of title and Damages.
purchaser of registered lang who takes a certificate RTC ruled in favor of the mortgagees.
of title for value in good faith shall hold the same CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
free from all encumbrances except those noted on
the certificate. ISSUE: W/N Ernesto and Dominador are mortgagees in
(3) NO. Not all the respondent heirs signed the mortgage good faith.
deed as instrumental witnesses. Only Guillermo
Bitanga signed to attest that Ver signed the HELD: Yes they are mortgagees in good faith.
instrument inhis presence and he is not bound to The principle of innocent purchasers for value is
know the contents of the document. There is also no applicable even in a case where the mortgagors were
evidence to show that PNB relied upon the signature impostors who pretended as the real owners of the
of Guillermo on the mortgage deed or that he made property. The general rule is a mortgage executed by a
any representations with the PNB for the acceptance person who is not the absolute owner of the property is
of the mortgage. Thus, there is no estoppel where null and void. An exception to this rule is the doctrine of
there is no reliance upon representations and where mortgagee in good faith. Under this doctrine, even if
there is no deliberate misleading of another. the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged
Furthermore, respondents are NOT guilty of laches property, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale
for having slept on or neglected to assert their right arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public
to the land after the lapse of more thatn 19 years policy. The principle is based on the rule that all persons
NOGRALES | FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | MENDOZA R | FAJARDO | MULI
LAND TITLES | SEC. 31 TO 68 | D 2012
NOGRALES | FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | MENDOZA R | FAJARDO | MULI