PETITIONS AND ACTIONS

AFTER ORIGINAL
REGISTRATION
GROUP 8

MADJACO
MUÑOZ
SAAVEDRA
Action for the surrender of withheld
duplicate certificates

An action filed whenever a new certificate of

title or memorandum cannot be issued or
entered because the owner or holder of the
owner’s duplicate certificate refuses or fails to
surrender the same to the Register of Deeds.
Action for the surrender of withheld
duplicate certificates

Some bacon to take home:

O This is an in personam proceeding

O It can be filed as a direct action or prayer

within an action affecting the said title.
Action for the surrender of withheld
duplicate certificates
What constitutes “withholding”?

The owner or holder refuses or fails to surrender his owner’s

duplicate certificate under these circumstances:

a. Because an involuntary instrument divested him of

ownership over the property without his consent; or

b. Because a voluntary instrument may divest him of his

ownership, but it cannot be registered because of the
refusal or failure to surrender.
Action for the surrender of withheld
duplicate certificates

Where to file:

The Regional Trial Court where the property is

situation.
Action for the surrender of withheld
duplicate certificates
Procedure:

Step 1: Aggrieved party files an action for the surrender of withheld

certificate, or include it as a relief in another action affecting the same
title.

Step 2: Trial will ensue.

Step 3: If granted by the court, and the decision becomes final, the judge
will issue an order directing the registered owner or holder of the owner’s
duplicate certificate to surrender the same to the register of deeds, and for
the Register of Deeds to issue a new certificate of title or memorandum
upon the surrender in the petitioner’s favor.
Action for the surrender of withheld
duplicate certificates
Procedure:

Step 4. If the owner or holder refuses, fails, or is not amenable

to the decision, the judge will order the annulment of the
owner’s duplicate certificate and issuance of a new certificate
of title.

The new certificate and its duplicates shall contain the

memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

An action to be filed whenever one desires to

erase, alter, or amend an information in the certificate
of title after its entry in the registration book. These
changes can only be done through a court order upon
the granting of this petition.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Some pointers:

O It partakes the nature of a summary proceeding

O In personam

O It should be given the same title as its original

registration proceeding, unless it shows that it is

founded on an adverse claim.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Who may file:

1. The registered owner

2. An interested party with unanimity of the owner

3. Concerned Register of Deeds with permission

from the Land Registration Commissioner
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Where to file:

General Rule - the RTC where the original registration

proceedings took place.

Purpose: Avoid multiplicity of suits, and to avoid future

conflicts arising from confusion, disorganization, etc.
Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates
Jurisprudence: Oppen vs Campos (2015)

Facts:

The land originally owned by the Philippine Merchant Marine School was levied by MeTC
Branch 7 Las Pinas to comply with the school’s obligations with the Manufacturer’s
Building, Inc. The same was annotated on the Certificate of title on August 22, 1986. But on
August 10, 1987, pursuant to a writ of execution issued by MeTC Branch 16 Las Pinas, it
was sold in a public auction where Ernesto Oppen, Inc was the highest bidder. He asked for
the issuance of a certificate of title in his name.

On September 22, 2002, an auction sale covering the same land was executed where
Compas became the highest bidder and was awarded the same.

A case was filed by Compas for the cancellation of EOI’s title. It was filed with the RTC of Las
Pinas. EOI objected, raising the issue of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss. EOI said that the
case should be dismissed because the proper venue for filing the case is not the RTC of Las
Pinas, but the MeTC of Las Pinas because this was where the original registration
proceedings took place in accordance with Section 108 of PD 1529.
Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates
Jurisprudence: Oppen vs Campos (2015)

Issue:

Should the case for cancellation of title be filed with the court where
the original registration proceedings took place?
Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates
Jurisprudence: Oppen vs Campos (2015)

Held:

No. There is no necessity to do so. The RTC Las Pinas correctly took
cognizance of the case at bar. This is because this is not a case for
alteration or amendment of certificate.
Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates
Jurisprudence: Oppen vs Campos (2015)

Held:

Proceedings under Section 108 are summary in nature,

contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only
clerical but certainly not controversial issues. Relief under the said
legal provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the
parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the
part of any party in interest.
Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates
Jurisprudence: Oppen vs Campos (2015)

Held:

Thus, the petition was properly filed with the RTC-Las Piñas where it
was docketed as LRC Case No. LP-05-0089, and not before the court
which heard the original registration proceeding under LRC No. N-
1238 because it involved adversarial issues.
Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates
Jurisprudence: Oppen vs Campos (2015)

Held:

A closer scrutiny of Section 2 and Section 108 of P.D. No.

1529 will show that the former pertains to the grant of
jurisdiction to regional trial courts while the latter refers to
the venue where the action is to be instituted.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Where to file

“The court is no longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction which

enabled it to grant relief only in cases where there was "unanimity among
the parties" or none of them raised any "adverse claim or serious
objection." Under the amended law, the court is now authorized to hear
and decide not only such non-controversial cases but even this contentious
and substantial issues, such as the question at bar, which were beyond its
competence before (Averia vs. Caguioa, G.R. No. L-65129).”
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Where to file:

Exception- In case of adverse claims, the RTC where the original

registration proceedings took place has concurrent jurisdiction
with other RTCs where the property is located. But it is where the
action is first filed that should take cognizance of the case.

This is in consonance with Section 2 of PD 1529.

 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a land registration

court.

Section 2 of PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction

between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial
court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the
former law when acting merely as a [land registration]
court.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Grounds

O Termination or cessation of registered interests

appearing on the title, whether vested, contingent,
expectant or inchoate;

O Creation of new interests which do not appear on the

certificate;

O Existence of error or omissions on the original

certificate, or any memorandum thereon, or any
duplicate certificate;
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Grounds

O There are changes as to the title or to any person on the

certificate;

O Change in the civil status of the registered owner from single to

married and vice versa, and that no right or interests of heirs
or creditors will be affected;

O Failure of a dissolved corporation which owned a registered

land to convene the same within three years after its
dissolution;
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Grounds

O Other reasonable grounds.

 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Procedure

Step 1. Filing of a proper petition with the RTC

where the case has been filed.

TN: The title of the case shall be entitled to that of

the original registration case, unless it is one
involving adverse claims.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Procedure

Step 2. All interested parties, if there exists

any, shall be notified of the said action

Step 3. Trial
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Procedure

Step 4. Once the court grants the petition, the judge

shall issue an order for the alteration, erasure, or
amendment in the registration book of the entry
concerning the certificate of title which was the subject
of the petition or any memorandum thereof.

The change shall be attested by the Register of Deeds.

The court may order the petitioner to pay a bond if it
deems necessary to do so.
 Action for amendment and alteration of
certificates

Time limit for filing

No limitation or period is fixed for filing a petition under

Sec. 108. However, if the petition under Section 108
would have the effect of reopening the decree of
registration, and impair the rights of innocent
purchasers in good faith for value, it cannot be filed, or,
if filed, should be dismissed.
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

This action is filed when the owner’s duplicate

certificate of a registered owner of land gets
lost or destroyed
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

Where to file

It must be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the land is
situated, and entitled in the original case in which the
registration was entered.
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

Who to file

Under Section 109 of PD 1529, the following persons may file

the petition for replacement of duplicate certificate:

O Registered owner
O A person who is not the owner but has an interest over the
property
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

Procedure

Step 1. The registered owner or person in

interest shall send a notice, under oath, of the
loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate
certificate to the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the property resides.
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

Procedure

Step 2. A petition for replacement of the lost

or destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate will
be filed with the court.
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

Procedure

Step 3. The hearing date shall be set after due

notice to the Register of Deeds and parties-in-
interest as shown in the memorandum of
encumbrances noted in the OCT or TCT.
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

Procedure

Step 4. After trial, the court may direct the

issuance of a new duplicate certificate which
shall contain a memorandum that it was
issued in place of the lost or destroyed
certificate and must be entitled with the same
respect and faith as the original duplicate
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

When is it not applicable

The court must dismiss a petition under Sec. 109 if:

O Only an affidavit of loss was attached to the petition without

previous notice to the Register of Deeds of the fact of loss.

O The owner’s duplicate certificate was not in fact lost or

destroyed.

Under these circumstances, the court lacks jurisdiction and the

certificate issued because of this petition shall be void. faith as
the original duplicate
ACTION FOR NOTICE AND REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES

O Jurisprudence: Camitan vs CA GR No. 128099

Question: Is there a need to prove the loss or destruction of the

owner’s duplicate certificate?

Answer: Yes, because the fact of loss of destruction is what

confers jurisdiction to the court. This Court has consistently held
that a trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over a petition for
the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title, if the
original is in fact not lost but is in the possession of an alleged
buyer.

Thus, before a duplicate certificate of title can be replaced, the

petitioner under [section 109] must establish that the duplicate
certificate was lost or destroyed.