a.

Office of the register of deeds; General functions

i. Baranda v. Gustilo

1. Eventually, Original Certificate of Title No. 6406 was cancelled and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 106098 was issued in the names of Alfonso Hitalia and
Eduardo S. Baranda The Court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez,
Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honor on the ground that they also
have TCT No. 25772 over the same Lot No. 4517. The Court, after considering
the private respondents' opposition and finding TCT No. 25772 fraudulently
acquired, ordered that the writ of possession be carried out

2. Baranda executed a motion for execution on the demolition order and that the
register of deeds register the title

3. upon a motion for reconsideration and manifestation filed by the Acting

Registrar of Deeds of Iloilo, Atty. Helen P. Sornito, on the ground that there was
a pending case before this Court, an Action for Mandamus, Prohibition,
Injunction under G.R. No. 67661 filed by Atty. Eduardo Baranda, against the
former which remained unresolved.

4. Ordering both the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo Branch XXIII, under Hon. Judge
Tito G. Gustilo and the acting Register of Deeds Helen P. Sornito to register the
Order dated September 5, 1984 of the lower court

5. Considering that the motion of movants Atty. Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso
Hitalia dated August 12, 1986 seeking the full implementation of the writ of
possession was granted by the Honorable Supreme Court, Second Division per
its Resolution dated September 17,1986, the present motion is hereby
GRANTED by the SC

6. on May 30, 1984, and all that remains is the implementation of our resolutions,
this COURT RESOLVED to refer the matters concerning the execution of the
decisions to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City for appropriate action and to
apply disciplinary sanctions upon whoever attempts to trifle with the
implementation of the resolutions of this Court.

7. However, a notice of lis pendens "on account of or by reason of a separate case

(Civil Case No. 15871) still pending in the Court of Appeals" was carried out and
annotated in the new certificates of titles issued to the petitioners. This was
upheld by the trial court after setting aside its earlier order dated February 12,
1987 ordering the cancellation of lis pendens

8. This prompted the petitioners to file another motion in G.R, No. 62042 and G.R.
No. 64432 to order the trial court to reinstate its order dated February 12, 1987
directing the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens in the
new certificates of titles
9. respondent Judge Gustilo granted the motion and directed the Acting Register
of Deeds of Iloilo to cancel the lis pendens found on Transfer Certificate of Title

10. That under the above-quoted provisions of P.D. 152, the cancellation of subject
Notice of Lis Pendens can only be made or deemed cancelled upon the
registration of the certificate of the Clerk of Court in which the action or
proceeding was pending, stating the manner of disposal thereof. Considering
that Civil Case No. 1587, upon which the Notice of Lis Pendens was based is still
pending with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, only the Intermediate Court of
Appeals and not this Honorable Court in a mere cadastral proceedings can order
the cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens

11. The issue hinges on whether or not the pendency of the appeal in Civil Case No.
15871 with the Court of Appeals prevents the court from cancelling the notice
of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of the petitioners which were earlier
declared valid and subsisting by this Court in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432.
A corollary issue is on the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to
annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title

12. Civil Case No. 15871 was a complaint to seek recovery of Lot No. 4517 of Sta.
Barbara Cadastre Iloilo, (the same subject matter of G.R. No 62042 and G.R. No.
64432) from petitioners Baranda and Hitalia filed by Calixta Provido,

13. It thus appears that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were privies to G.R. No.
62042 contrary to the trial court's findings that they were not. The decision in
G.R. No. 62042 became final and executory on March 25,1983 long before Civil
Case No. 15871 was filed

14. Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that the Providos, private
respondents herein, in filing Civil Case No. 15871 were trying to delay the full
implementation of the final decisions in G.R. No. 62042 as well as G.R. No.
64432 wherein this Court ordered immediate implementation of the writs of
possession and demolition in the reconstitution proceedings

15. Lis pendens has been conceived to protect the real rights of the party causing
the registration thereof With the lis pendens duly recorded, he could rest
secure that he would not lose the property or any part of it. For, notice of lis
pendens serves as a warning to a prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that
the particular property is in litigation; and that he should keep his hands off
the same, unless of course he intends to gamble on the results of the litigation

16. We have once held that while ordinarily a notice of pendency which has been
filed in a proper case, cannot be cancelled while the action is pending and
undetermined, the proper court has the discretionary power to cancel it under
peculiar circumstances, as for instance, where the evidence so far presented by
the plaintiff does not bear out the main allegations of his complaint, and where
the continuances of the trial, for which the plaintiff is responsible, are
 unnecessarily delaying the determination of the case to the prejudice of the
defendant.

17. Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the duty of the Register of
Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing
with real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for
registration. ... . If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny
registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating
the ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal by
consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree

18. Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard
to the proper step to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any
deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration or where
any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of
Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted
to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party
in interest thru the Register of Deeds

19. Hence, the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of
deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The
respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a
motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing him to
cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the
petitioners over the subject parcel of land. In case of doubt as to the proper
step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument presented to
him, he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land
Registration now, the Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds
Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529.

ii. Balbin v. Register of deeds ilocos sur

1. petitioners presented to the register of deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of

the registered owner's certificate of title (OCT No. 548) and an instrument
entitled "Deed of Donation inter-vivos," with the request that the same be
annotated on the title

2. The register of deeds denied the requested annotation for being "legally
defective or otherwise not sufficient in law." It appears that previously
annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances on the certificate are three
separate sales of undivided portions of the land earlier executed by Cornelio
Balbin in favor of three different buyers

3. Unsatisfied, petitioners referred the matter to the Commissioner of Land

Registration, who subsequently upheld the action of the Register of Deeds
4. It appears that the donor is now merely a co-owner of the property described in
the Original Certificate of Title No. 548, having previously sold undivided
portions thereof on three different occasions in favor of three different buyers.
Consequently, aside from the owner's duplicate issued to Cornelio Balbin, there
are now three co-owner's duplicates which are presumably in the possession of
the three buyers. Accordingly, in addition to the owner's duplicate of Original
Certificate of Title No. 548, the three co-owner's duplicates must likewise be
surrendered. The claim of counsel for the donees that the issuance of the three
co-owner's duplicates was unauthorized is beside the point. Unless and until a
court of competent jurisdiction rules to the contrary, these titles are presumed
to have been lawfully issued

5. Without presenting those three (3) other duplicates of the title, petitioners
would want to compel annotation of the deed of donation upon the copy in
their possession, citing section 55 of Act 496, which provides that "the
production of the owner's duplicate certificate of title whenever any voluntary
instrument is presented for registration shall be conclusive authority from the
registered owner to the register of deeds to make a memorandum of
registration in accordance with such instrument." Under this provision,
according to petitioners, the presentation of the other copies of the title is not
required, first, because it speaks of "registered owner" and not one whose claim
to or interest in the property is merely annotated on the title, such as the three
vendees-co-owners in this case; and secondly, because the issuance of the
duplicate copies in their favor was illegal or unauthorized

6. SC finds no merit, Section 55, supra, obviously assumes that there is only one
duplicate copy of the title in question, namely, that of the registered owner
himself, such that its production whenever a voluntary instrument is presented
constitutes sufficient authority from him for the register of deeds to make the
corresponding memorandum of registration. In the case at bar, the three other
copies of the title were in existence,

7. The law itself refers to every copy authorized to be issued as a duplicate of the
original, which means that both must contain identical entries of the
transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting the land covered by the
title. If this were not so, if different copies were permitted to carry differing
annotations, the whole system of Torrens registration would cease to be
reliable

8. property of the marriage of the donor, Cornelio Balbin, and his deceased wife,
Nemesia Mina, "there should first be a liquidation of the partnership before the
surviving spouse may make such a conveyance.

9. Nevertheless, it is not to be denied that, if the conjugal character of the

property is assumed, the deed of donation executed by the husband, Cornelio
Balbin, bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial of its registration,
namely, the fact that the two-thirds portion of said property which he donated
 was more than his one-half share, not to say more than what remained of such
share after he had sold portions of the same land to three other parties

iii. Almirol v. register of deeds of Agusan

1. Teodoro Almirol purchased from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in the
municipality of Esperanza. Almirol went to the office of the Register of Deeds of
Agusan in Butuan City to register the deed of sale and to secure in his name a
transfer certificate of title. Registration was refused by the Register of Deeds

2. To effect the registration of the aforesaid deed of absolute Sale, it is

necessary that the property be first liquidated and transferred in the name of
the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased wife by means of
extrajudicial settlement or partition and that the consent of such other heir or
heirs must be procured by means of another document ratifying this sale
executed by their father

3. In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court of First Instance of Agusan
on a petition for mandamus, to compel the Register of Deeds to register the
deed of sale and to issue to him the corresponding transfer certificate of title. It
is Almirol's assertion that it is but a ministerial duty of the respondent to
perform the acts required of him, and that he (Almirol) has no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

4. In its resolution of October 16, 1963 the lower court, declaring that "mandamus
does not lie . . . because the adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of
Rep. Act 1151", dismissed the petition, with costs against the petitioner

5. Although the reasons relied upon by the respondent evince a sincere desire on
his part to maintain inviolate the law on succession and transmission of rights
over real properties, these do not constitute legal grounds for his refusal to
register the deed. Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the register of
deeds to determine; this function belongs properly to a court of competent
jurisdiction

6. Section 4 of R.A. 1151. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to
the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any
deed, mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for registration, or
where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds with
reference to any such matter, the question shall be submitted to the
Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the certification of the
Register of Deeds, stating the question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the
suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the
Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by the records certified
to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing,
shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be
made. His decision in such cases shall be conclusive and binding upon all
 Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That when a party in interest disagrees
with the ruling or resolution of the Commissioner and the issue involves a
question of law, said decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court within
thirty days from and after receipt of the notice thereof.

7. This administrative remedy must be resorted to by the petitioner before he can

have recourse to the courts

iv. Genorga v. Heirs of julian meliton

1. Meliton, and Ma. Fe Meliton Espinosa (Ma. Fe; respondents) are the registered
owners of a 227,270-square meter parcel of land

2. Julian owns 8/14 portion of the land, while the rest of the co-owners own 1114
each.7 During his lifetime, Julian sold portions of the subject land to various
persons, among others, to petitioner Remedios V. Geñorga's (petitioner)
husband, Gaspar Geñorga, who took possession and introduced improvements
on the portions respectively sold to them

3. However, Julian failed to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 8027
to enable the buyers, including petitioner's husband, to register their respective
deeds of sale, which eventually led to the filing of a Petition for the surrender of
the owner's duplicate copy

4. respondents filed a Complaint against petitioner before the court a quo, seeking
the surrender of the subject owner's duplicate title with damages, docketed as
Civil Case No. 2013-0036. They claimed that they are entitled to the possession
thereof as registered owners, and suffered damages as a consequence of its
unlawful withholding, compelling them to secure the services of counsel to
protect their interests

5. respondents filed a Complaint against petitioner before the court a quo, seeking
the surrender of the subject owner's duplicate title with damages, docketed as
Civil Case No. 2013-0036. They claimed that they are entitled to the possession
thereof as registered owners, and suffered damages as a consequence of its
unlawful withholding, compelling them to secure the services of counsel to
protect their interests

6. petitioner averred that she and the other buyers are in the process of
completing all the requirements for the registration of the sales in their favor,
and have paid the estate taxes thereon. They had likewise caused the survey of
the land but the first geodetic engineer they hired to conduct the same failed to
deliver his services, prompting them to file a complaint against him, and to hire
another geodetic engineer. Considering that their possession of the subject
owner's duplicate title was by virtue of a court decision, and for the legitimate
purpose of registering the sales in their favor and the issuance of titles in their
names, they should be allowed to retain possession until the completion of the
requirements therefor
 7. the RTC granted respondents' petition, and ordered petitioner and/or the RD-
Naga to deliver or surrender possession of the subject owner's duplicate title to
respondents, considering the long period of time that had lapsed for the
annotation of the buyers' deeds of sale

8. the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It noted the long length of time that had lapsed
for the annotation of the buyers' deeds of sale and the issuance of the
corresponding certificates of title, and found no valid and plausible reason to
further withhold custody and possession of the subject owner's duplicate title
from respondents. Thus, it adjudged respondents to have the preferential right
to the possession of the said title, considering that the bigger portion of the
subject property belongs to them

9. However, a perusal of the pertinent deeds of absolute sale reveals that definite
portions of the subject land were eventually sold, and the buyers took
possession and introduced improvements thereon, declared the same in their
names, and paid the realty taxes thereon, all without any objection from
respondents who never disputed the sales in favor of the buyers. Consequently,
the Court finds that there is, in this case, a partial factual partition or
termination of the co-ownership, which entitles the buyers to the segregation of
their respective portions, and the issuance of new certificates of title in their
names upon compliance with the requirements of law

10. the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds
is only ministerial in nature. Thus, the RD-Naga cannot be expected to retain
possession of the subject owner's duplicate title longer than what is
reasonable to perform its duty. In the absence of a verified and approved
subdivision plan and technical description duly submitted for registration on
TCT No. 8027, it must return the same to the presenter, in this case, petitioner
who, as aforesaid, failed to establish a better right to the possession of the said
owner's duplicate title as against respondents

11. As a final point, it must, however, be clarified that the above-pronounced

delivery or surrender is without prejudice to the rights of the concerned buyers
who would be able to subsequently complete the necessary registration

2. Original registration

a. Open continuous possession of alienable land

i. Ong v. Republic

1. Ong (petitioner) in his behalf and as duly authorized representative of

his brothers, namely, Roberto, Alberto and Cesar, filed an Application
for Registration of Title

2. that they are the co-owners of the subject lot; that the subject lot is
their exclusive property having acquired the same by purchase from
 spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia Villamil and that they and their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous and peaceful
possession of the subject lot in the concept of owners for more than
thirty (30) years

3. only respondent Republic of the Philippines (respondent), represented

by the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application for
registration of title. Respondent asserted that neither applicants nor
their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot since June
12, 1945 or earlier as required by Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act
No. 141, as amended by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1073; that
applicants failed to adduce any muniment of title to prove their claims;
that the tax declaration appended to the application does not appear
genuine and merely shows pretended possession of recent vintage; that
the application was filed beyond the period allowed under P.D. No. 892;
and that the subject lot is part of the public domain which cannot be the
subject of private appropriation

4. The said circumstances further show that the possession and ownership
of the applicant and her (sic) predecessors-in-interest over the same
parcel of land has (sic) been continuous and peaceful under bona fide
claim of ownership before the filing of the instant application for
registration - RTC

5. Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which

rendered the assailed Decision. In reversing the decision of the trial
court, the Court of Appeals found that the subject lot is part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Thus, it was
incumbent upon petitioner to prove that they possessed the subject
lot in the nature and for the duration required by law. However,
petitioner failed to prove that he or his predecessors-in-interest have
been in adverse possession of the subject lot in the concept of owner
since June 12, 1945 or earlier as mandated by Section 14(1) of P.D.
1529. It noted that the earliest tax declaration which petitioner
presented is dated 197

6. Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 ("Property Registration Decree"), as

amended, provides —

SEC. 14. Who may apply. –The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

7. applicants for registration of title must prove: (1) that the subject land forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) that they have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier

8. There is no dispute that the subject lot is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain.

9. The earliest tax declaration which was submitted in evidence was Tax Declaration No. 2560617
issued in 1971 in the names of spouses Agustin Cacho and Eufrosinia Baustista. While tax
declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, they constitute good indicia of possession in
the concept of owner and a claim of title over the subject property

10. The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other.
Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his
possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property

11. Petitioner admitted that after he and his brothers bought the subject lot from spouses Tony
Bautista and Alicia Villamil in 1998, neither he nor his brothers actually occupied the subject
lot.21 No improvements were made thereon and the most that they did was to visit the lot on
several occasions. Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Tony Bautista testified that he and his
wife never actually occupied the subject lot from the time they bought the same from spouses
Teofilo Abellera and Abella Sarmen in 1997

12. The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show by clear,
positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the land is of
the nature and duration required by law. Unfortunately, petitioner’s evidence do not constitute
the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence necessary in cases of this nature