L016 AND L017 CASE DIGESTS

BY: MARIA FRANCHESKA M.

GARCIA (150725)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page 1

Table of Contents 2

Case Digests: Learning Objectives 16

1. The Phil. Cotton Corp. vs. Gagoomal 5

2. Agbulos vs. Alberto 6
3. Tangunan vs. Republic 7
4. Rehabilitation Finance Corp. vs. Morales 8
5. Baranda vs. Gustilo 9
6. Viewmaster Construction Corp. vs. Maulit 10
7. Villanueva vs. CA 11
8. People vs. RTC of Manila 12

9. People vs. RTC of Manila 13

10. Romero vs. CA 14
11. Villanueva vs. CA 15
12. Somes vs. Government of the Phil. Islands 16
13. A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. vs. CA 17
14. RD of Negros Occidental vs. Anglo, Sr. 18
15. De Guzman vs. National Treasurer of the Republic of the Phils. 19
16. RD of Negros Occidental vs. Anglo, Sr. 20
17. Reyes vs. Solemar Development Corp. 21
18. Eagle Realty Corp. vs. Republic 22
19. Estrellado vs. Martinez 23
20. Ting Ho, Jr. vs. Teng Gui 24
21. Republic vs. Umali 25
22. Padilla, Jr. vs. Phil. Producers Cooperative Marketing Assoc., Inc. 26
23. Reyes vs. Tang Soat Ing 27

2
Case Digests: Learning Objectives 17

1. New Durawood Co., Inc. vs. CA 29

2. Paz vs. Republic 30
3. Bagayas vs. Bagayas 31
4. City Government of Tagaytay vs. Guerrero 32
5. Almirañez vs. Devera 33
6. Crisologo vs. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corp. 34
7. Ernesto Oppen, Inc. vs. Compas 35
8. New Durawood Co., Inc. vs. CA 36
9. Office of Court Administrator vs. Matas 37
10. Strait Times, Inc. vs. CA 38
11. Heirs of Susana De Guzman Tuazon vs. CA 39
12. Heirs of Ragua vs. CA 40
13. Angat vs. Republic 41
14. Layos vs. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. 42
15. Republic vs. Casimiro 43
16. Puzon vs. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. 44
17. Tahanan Development Corp. vs. CA 45
18. Republic vs. Planes 46
19. Alabang Development Corp. vs. Valenzuela 47
20. Castillo vs. Republic 48
21. Dela Paz vs. CA 49
22. Quilala vs. Alcantara 50
23. Aleman vs. De Catera 51
24. A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. vs. CA 52

3
 LO16 CASES

4
 THE PHIL. COTTON CORP. vs. GAGOOMAL
G.R. No. 130389. February 11, 2008.

FACTS:
Pacific Mills, Inc. originally owned five parcels of land covered by four TCTs.
These properties were subsequently purchased by respondents on an installment basis
from Pacific Mills on July 19, 1979. The RTC of Pasig then ordered Pacific Mills to pay
its obligation under the loan agreement. This was affirmed by the CA. However, during
the pendency of the appeal, the Quezon City Hall was razed by fire thereby destroying
the records of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, including the TCTs of Pacific Mills.
Pacific Mills filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the burned TCTs. The Registry of
Deeds of Quezon City issued to Pacific Mills the reconstituted TCTs. However, the
aforesaid alleged annotations of the preliminary attachment in favor of petitioner were
not incorporated in the reconstituted TCTs, but annotated therein was the sale made by
Pacific Mills to respondents and their payment in full. On even date, the reconstituted
TCTs were cancelled in favor of the respondents. On February 8, 1993, petitioner wrote
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City requesting for the annotation of the notice of levy,
and, subsequently, the annotation of a favorable decision of this Court rendered on
August 3, 1992, on the new TCTs issued to respondents.
On February 10, 1993, Samuel Cleofe, the Quezon City Register of Deeds,
informed respondents that the letter-request for re-annotation of notice of levy had been
entered in the Primary Entry Book and asked them to surrender their owners’ duplicate
copies of TCTs. Immediately upon receipt of the said letter, respondents verified the
original copies of titles in the possession of the Registry of Deeds and discovered that
the following annotations were included at the back of the titles: “Request for Re-
Annotation of Notice of Levy” and “Letter Request for Annotation of Entry of Judgment
of Supreme Court.” Thereafter, respondents filed on March 3, 1993, a Petition for the
Cancellation of Annotations in Land Titles before the RTC of Quezon City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sections 10 and 71 of PD 1529 are essentially the same
provisions?

HELD:
NO. Section 10 of P.D. No. 1529 merely involves the general functions of the Register
of Deeds, while Section 71 thereof relates to an attachment or lien in a registered land
in which the duplicate certificate was not presented at the time of the registration of
the said lien or attachment.

5
 AGBULOS vs. ALBERTO
G.R. No. L-17483. July 31, 1962.

FACTS:
By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila on
March 16, 1959 in Civil Case No. 18644 entitled Jose Agbulos, plaintiff, vs. Jose C.
Alberto, defendant, the rights, interests and participation of the latter in a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 24643 of the land records of Manila were
levied upon. After due proceedings the corresponding execution sale thereof was made
on June 15, 1959, with herein appellant Agbulos (judgment creditor in the case) as the
highest bidder. The officer who made the sale issued the certificate of sale on July 8,
1959 and the same provided that "The redemption of the above described property from
the purchaser may be made at any time within twelve (12) months after the sale."
The same was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila on July 18
of the same year. It appears that on the same date (June 23, 1960) appellant filed with
the Sheriff of Manila a verified request for the execution and delivery to him of the final
deed of sale upon the ground that the judgment debtor had not redeemed the property
within the period of one year after the sale. On June 29 of the same year the Sheriff
replied that he could not accede to the request, giving the following as his reasons for
the denial: (a) that the certificate of sale in favor of appellant was registered only on July
18, 1959, for which reason the period of redemption commenced to run only from such
date; and (b) that the judgment debtor had deposited on June 23, 1960, that is, before
the expiration of the one-year period of redemption, the total sum of P6,670.00 in full
redemption of his property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the ownership of the subject property was successfully
transferred?

HELD:

NO. When property brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act is sold, the
operative act is the registration of the deed of conveyance. The deed of sale does not
"take effect as a conveyance, or bind the land" until it is registered. In consonance with
this rule, Section 24, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a duplicate of the
certificate of sale given by the sheriff who made the auction sale to the purchaser must
be registered in the office of the register of deeds of the province where the land is
situated. Since it is only from the date of its registration that a certificate of sale takes
effect as a conveyance, the period of one year after the sale must likewise start only
from such date of registration.

6
 TANGUNAN vs. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. L-5545. December 29, 1953.

FACTS:
Original certificate of title No. 9758 was issued in the name of the owners in pro-
indiviso. It appears that original certificate of title No. 9758 was issued in the name of
the owners, pro-indiviso, as follows: "Alejandro Rebolledo, widower, 3/6 shares; Basilio
Rebolledo, married to Dominga Taguiam, 1/6 shares; Claudia Rebolledo, single, 1/6
share; and Bartola Rebolledo, the wife of Valeriano Nague, 1/6 share, all of Rizal,
Province of Nueva Ecija, P. I."
Alejandro Rebolledo acted as one of the bondsmen in Criminal Cases Nos. 44528
and 44642 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and having defaulted in his
undertaking, the Government asked for the forfeiture of the bond and the writ of
execution was annotated on the back of Certificate of Title No. 9758 on April 28, 1933.
Since 1933, no further action was taken on the execution by the Government, nor by the
Sheriff, and the encumbrance continued annotated on said certificate of title. On April
13, 1950, Basilio Rebolledo, Federico Rebolledo and Tranquilina Ragsac, the latter in
her behalf and in that of her minor children Lucena, Faustino and Luzviminda, entered
into a contract to sell the land to petitioners wherein it was agreed that a partial payment
of the consideration would be made immediately and the balance after the title of the
land is cleared of any encumbrance and is transferred in their names by the Register of
Deeds. In order to comply with this part of the agreement, petitioners filed the present
petition in Cadastral Case No. 14 wherein they prayed that the above encumbrance be
cancelled on the ground that the right of the Government to enforce it has already
prescribed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the relief under Section 75 of PD 1529 may be availed of?

HELD:
NO. While section 112 of Act No. 496, among other things, authorizes a person in
interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title
"upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased," such relief can only
be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or
serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise, the case becomes
controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the
incident properly belongs. 

7
 REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. vs. MORALES
G.R. No. L-10064. April 23, 1957.

FACTS:
This is a petition filed by the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation in G.L.R.O. Rec.
No. 7671 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the cancellation of a notice of  lis
pendens annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12226 under section
112 of Act No. 496.
Buen Morales opposed the petition on the main ground that, being an innocent
third party, he is protected by the notice of lis pendens, and if the same will be
cancelled, he will suffer considerable damages as a result of the cancellation. He also
claims that the issues raised in his opposition which involve the ownership of the
property affected by the notice of lis pendens cannot be resolved in the present incident
and as such the court has no jurisdiction to act on the matter. After hearing, the court
sustained the opposition holding that while the notice of lis pendens annotated
subsequently to the mortgage in favor of petitioner cannot affect its right as mortgagee,
yet "said notice certainly affected its right as purchaser because notice of lis
pendenssimply means that a certain property is involved in a litigation and serves as
notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does it at his own risks."
Petitioner moved to reconsider the order, and when the motion was denied, it appealed
the order to this Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the notice of lis pendens be cancelled at the instance of
petitioner?

HELD:
NO. The Court is not here saying that petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its
Complaint pending in the RTC. Verily, there is no requirement that the right to or the
interest in the property subject of a lis pendensbe proven by the applicant. The Rule
merely requires that an affirmative relief be claimed. A notation of lis pendens neither
affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a lien. It merely protects the
applicant’s rights, which will be determined during the trial.

8
 BARANDA vs. GUSTILO
G.R. No. 81163. September 26, 1988.
FACTS:
A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta.
Barbara, Iloilo covered by original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject of the
dispute between petitioners Eduardo Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, and respondents
Gregorio Perez, Maria Gotera and Susan Silao. Both parties claimed ownership and
possession over the said land. However during the trial, it was found that the transfer
certificate of title held by respondents was fraudulently acquired. So the transfer
certificate of title was ordered to be put in the name of petitioners. In compliance with
the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the order
declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued new certificate of
titles in the name of petitioners. However, by reason of a separate case pending in the
Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new certificate of title.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court erred in cancelling the lis pendens?

HELD:

YES. The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is defined in the following manner: “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.

9
 VIEWMASTER CONSTRUCTION CORP. vs. MAULIT
G.R. No. 136283. February 29, 2000.

FACTS:
The subject property is known as the Las Piñas property registered in the name
of Peltan Development Inc. The Chiong/Roxas family collectively owns and controls
State Investment Trust, Inc. The said family decided to give control and ownership over
the said corporations to only one member of the family, through the process of bidding
among the family members/stockholders of the said companies. Defendant Allen
Roxas, one of the stockholders of State Investment Trust, Inc. applied for a loan with
First Metro Investment, Inc. in order to participate in the bidding. First Metro granted
Allen Roxas' loan application without collateral provided however that he procure a
guarantor, surety or solidary co-debtor to secure the payment of the said loan. Petitioner
Viewmaster agreed to act as guarantor in consideration for its participation in a Joint
Venture Project to co-develop the real estate assets of State Investment Trust, Inc.
As a result of the loans granted by First Metro in consideration of and upon the
guaranty of petitioner Viewmaster, defendant Allen Roxas, eventually gained control
and ownership of State Investment Trust, Inc. However, notwithstanding the lapse of
two years since defendant Allen Roxas became the controlling stockholder of State
Investment Trust, Inc., he failed to take the necessary action to implement the Joint
Venture Project. Thus, petitioner demanded from Allen Roxas to comply with the
agreement. Then, petitioner filed a Notice of Lis Pendens with the Register of Deeds for
the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens on TCT registered in the name of Peltan
Development, Inc. The respondent Register of Deeds of Las Piñas denied the request
for annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens. Then, petitioner filed an appeal to the
respondent Land Registration Authority.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners adequately described the property in their complaint
and in the notice lis pendens?

HELD:
YES. A notice of lis pendens, which literally means “pending suit,” may involve actions
that deal not only with the title or possession of a property, but even with the use or
occupation thereof. x x x In Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, the Court did not confine the availability of lis pendens to cases involving the
title to or possession of real property. x x x In Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, this Court
further declared that the rule of lis pendens applied to suits brought “to establish an
equitable estate, interest, or right in specific real property or to enforce any lien, charge,
or encumbrance against it x x x.”

10
 VILLANUEVA vs. CA
G.R. No. 117108. November 5, 1997.

FACTS:
TCT Nos. 262631, 273873 and 2777938 were issued in the name of Valiant
Realty and Development Corporation and Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc. and the same were
mortgaged in favor of Equitable Banking Corp. Eventually, the bank foreclosed the
mortgaged properties and sold the same to the Equitable Banking Corp. as the highest
bidder. Mortgagors did not exercise the right of redemption. As a result, the mortgagee
sold all its rights, interests and participation of said properties to herein oppositor, Oo
Kian Tiok. The latter took possession up to the present time, except for a brief period of
time when his possession was interrupted by the herein petitioner, who together with
armed goons, and without any court order swooped down on the properties and
disarmed the security guards assigned therein. This prompted Oo Kian Tiok to file a
case against Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc., Daniel Villanueva and others for Recovery of
Possession.
As a consequence, the herein petitioner, being one of the defendants of the
above-mentioned case, filed a formal request with the Office of the Register of Deeds to
annotate a corresponding Notice of Lis Pendens of Civil Case No. 92-2358 in the
respective Memorandum of Encumbrances of TCT Nos. 262631; 273873 and 277938
but the same was denied registration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the notice of lis pendens may be annotated in this case?

HELD:
YES. In Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this Court
enumerated the cases where a notice of lis pendens is proper: “According to Section
24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and Section 76 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, a
notice of lis pendens is proper in the following cases, viz.: a) An action to recover
possession of real estate; b) An action to quiet title thereto; c) An action to remove
clouds thereon; d) An action for partition; and e) Any other proceedings of any kind in
Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the
buildings thereon.

11
 PEOPLE vs. RTC OF MANILA
G.R. No. 81541. October 4, 1989.

FACTS:
Private Respondents sold several parcels of land in favor of Ricardo Silverio.
These lands are registered at that time in the names of respondents. One of the parcels
is the subject matter of a litigation between the respondents, and Pedro Caragao and
his co-owners. The case is for the reconveyance and cancellation of title and damages
before the RTC of Cavite. Pedro Caragao then caused the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens at the back of the original TCT of the parcel under litigation without the
knowledge of the respondents, so the owners’ copy of the title in question did not bear
any annotation of such notice of lis pendens. When respondents sold the two parcels of
land to Silverio, they warranted that the properties are free from liens and
encumbrances. On the basis of such express warranty vis-a-vis the notice of lis
pendens duly annotated at the back of the original, Asst. Fiscal Dilao of Manila filed an
information for "Falsification of Public Document" against the respondents. Before the
arraignment, the respondents filed a Motion to Quash. The RTC sustained respondent’s
motion. Caragao filed his opposition only after the issuance of the order granting the
Motion to Quash. He argued that notice of lis pendens is the evidence of the lien or
encumbrance on the subject property, and not the lien or encumbrance itself charged in
the information.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a notice of lis pendens acts as a mere notice?

HELD:
YES. Lis pendens is a Latin term which literally means a pending suit or a pending
litigation while a notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a
particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an
interest over the said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result
of the litigation over the said property. It is but a signal to the intending buyer or
mortgagee to take care or beware and to investigate the prospect or non-prospect of the
litigation succeeding before he forks down his money. The lower court is therefore
correct in ruling that a notice of lis pendens being a mere cautionary notice to a
prospective buyer or mortgagee of a parcel of land under litigation, then it imposes no
obligation on the owner, but on the prospective buyer. It cannot conceivably be the “lien
or encumbrance” contemplated by law.

12
 PEOPLE vs. RTC OF MANILA
G.R. No. 81541. October 4, 1989.

FACTS:
Private Respondents sold several parcels of land in favor of Ricardo Silverio.
These lands are registered at that time in the names of respondents. One of the parcels
is the subject matter of a litigation between the respondents, and Pedro Caragao and
his co-owners. The case is for the reconveyance and cancellation of title and damages
before the RTC of Cavite. Pedro Caragao then caused the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens at the back of the original TCT of the parcel under litigation without the
knowledge of the respondents, so the owners’ copy of the title in question did not bear
any annotation of such notice of lis pendens. When respondents sold the two parcels of
land to Silverio, they warranted that the properties are free from liens and
encumbrances. On the basis of such express warranty vis-a-vis the notice of lis
pendens duly annotated at the back of the original, Asst. Fiscal Dilao of Manila filed an
information for "Falsification of Public Document" against the respondents. Before the
arraignment, the respondents filed a Motion to Quash. The RTC sustained respondent’s
motion. Caragao filed his opposition only after the issuance of the order granting the
Motion to Quash. He argued that notice of lis pendens is the evidence of the lien or
encumbrance on the subject property, and not the lien or encumbrance itself charged in
the information.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a notice of lis pendens creates a lien on the instrument?

HELD:
NO. The following are considered encumbrances: A claim, lien, charge, or liability
attached to and binding real property; e.g., a mortgage, judgment lien, lease, security
interest, easement or right of way, accrued and unpaid taxes. A lien is already an
existing burden or charge on the property while a notice of lis pendens, as the very term
connotes, is only a notice or warning that a claim or possible charge on the property is
pending determination by the court.
Consequently, the effect of a notice of lis pendens is not to establish an actual lien
on the property affected. All that it does is to give notice to third persons and to the
whole world that any interest they may acquire in the property pending litigation will be
subject to the eventuality or result of the suit. It follows to reason, therefore, that the
mere failure to state in a public document, as a notarized deed of sale, the existence of
a notice of lis pendens does not constitute falsification of a public document under
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. This is specially true in the case at bar because
the notice of lis pendens is annotated only at the back of the original of the T.C.T. in the
Registry of Deeds; it does not appear at the back of the owner’s copy of the same
T.C.T.

13
 ROMERO vs. CA
G.R. No. 142406. May 16, 2005.

FACTS:
Romero and her siblings executed a letter-contract to sell with private respondent
Orden. In said contract, private respondent proposed to purchase from Romero and her
siblings a property located Cubao, Quezon for the total amount of P17 million. The
contract stipulated that private respondent shall pay petitioner the amount of P7 million
upon the execution of the deed of absolute sale. When private respondent failed to pay
the down payment, petitioner Corona told him that she was rescinding the contract to
sell. Private respondent then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
against petitioners before the RTC.
Simultaneously, private respondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens Limsico, Jr. and Santos, subsequent buyers of the subject property sold by
petitioner Corona and her siblings, filed a motion for leave to intervene and filed a
motion for the cancellation of lis pendens which the RTC granted in its Resolution. The
RTC reasoned that the inscription is not necessary to protect the alleged right of the
plaintiff over the subject property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in ordering the re-annotation of the lis pendens?

HELD:
NO. While the trial court has inherent power to cancel a notice of lis pendens, such
power, meanwhile, is exercised under express provisions of law. As provided for by
Sec. 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice of lis pendens may be
cancelled on two grounds: (1) if the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title
of the adverse party, or (2) when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of
the party who caused it to be recorded. In Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, we held that a notice of lis pendens is appropriate in the following:
(a) an action to recover possession of real estate; (b) an action to quiet title thereto; (c)
an action to remove clouds thereon; (d) an action for partition; and (e) any other
proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.

14
 VILLANUEVA vs. CA
G.R. No. 117108. November 5, 1997.

FACTS:
TCT Nos. 262631, 273873 and 2777938 were issued in the name of Valiant
Realty and Development Corporation and Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc. and the same were
mortgaged in favor of Equitable Banking Corp. Eventually, the bank foreclosed the
mortgaged properties and sold the same to the Equitable Banking Corp. as the highest
bidder. Mortgagors did not exercise the right of redemption. As a result, the mortgagee
sold all its rights, interests and participation of said properties to herein oppositor, Oo
Kian Tiok. The latter took possession up to the present time, except for a brief period of
time when his possession was interrupted by the herein petitioner, who together with
armed goons, and without any court order swooped down on the properties and
disarmed the security guards assigned therein. This prompted Oo Kian Tiok to file a
case against Filipinas Textile Mills, Inc., Daniel Villanueva and others for Recovery of
Possession.
Petitioner, as one of the defendants of the said case, filed a formal request with
the Office of the Register of Deeds to annotate a corresponding Notice of Lis Pendens
of the case in the respective Memorandum of Encumbrances of TCT Nos. 262631,
273873 and 277938. However, this was denied registration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not proof of ownership of the subject property must be present to
register or annotate the notice of lis pendens?

HELD:
NO. The law does not require proof of ownership for the registration of the notice of lis
pendens. It serves merely as a warning to a person who purchases or contracts on the
subject property that he does so at his peril and subject to the result of the pending
litigation. The registration of the notice of lis pendens is done without leave of court. The
Rule merely requires an affirmative relief to be claimed in the answer to enable a
defendant to apply for the annotation of the notice. There is no requirement that the
applying defendant must prove his right or interest over the property sought to be
annotated.

15
 SOMES vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS
G.R. No. L-42754. October 30, 1935.

FACTS:
Vicente Somes, son of plaintiff, instituted civil case No. 30590 against his wife
Nieves Chofre, the intervenor. The latter obtained judgment for support. On appeal, the
Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. She then obtained a writ of execution of the
judgment rendered in her favor and the sheriff the property with TCT No. 25909. A
petition was then filed by the intervenor, praying that Vicente Somes be restrained from
alienating or encumbering the property mortgaged. The plaintiff instituted a case in the
CFI against his son, Vicente Somes, praying for the annulment of the deed of sale of
the property and the improvements thereon described in OCT No. 5069. The annulment
of the mortgage constituted by his son in favor of the Government was also prayed.
The Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by the Director of Lands,
brought action against Vicente Somes to foreclose the mortgage executed by the latter.
Hearing was held by default of Vicente Somes after which the court rendered judgment
against him in favor of the Government. The judgment so rendered was not appealed
and it became final. The appealed judgment does not expressly declare null the
judgment of foreclosure of mortgage rendered in a case No. 38999 but found, and it so
held, that the action of foreclosure bought by the Government was premature.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the notice of lis pendens has a legal effect similar to a lien?

HELD:
NO. The notation of the plaintiff's notice produced no effect whatsoever against the
Government's mortgage not only because the latter was prior to the former but also
because once the mortgage is declared valid and effective by final judgment, the
plaintiff can no longer enforce any preferential right. As to the intervenor's notice, she
had in fact no right to the notation thereof on the ground that the right which she tried to
protect arose from a mere judgment for a sum of money and as such was personal in
character. The action brought by the husband against her was likewise in personam and
the suit between them did not involve the mortgaged property.

16
 A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. vs. CA
G.R. Nos. L-42956-57. January 12, 1988.

FACTS:
Blue Chips Projects, Inc. is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in
Rizal and covered by TCT No. 344936. Blue Chips Projects, Inc. purchased said
property from Purita Landicho, the lawful registered owner. Then, petitioner-appellant A.
Doronila Resources Development Inc. availed of the remedy of lis pendens, the same
having been annotated on TCT No. 344936. Petitioner filed an affidavit of adverse claim
for registration with the Register of deeds of Rizal on the ground that the property
covered by the aforesaid title registered in the name of Blue Chips Projects Inc. is a
portion of a big parcel of land which was purchased by petitioner corporation from
Alfonso Doronila. The Register of Deeds of Rizal denied the registration of the affidavit
of the said adverse claim on the ground that a notice of lis pendens remain registered
on the certificate of title involved should be a bar to the registration of an affidavit of
adverse claim.
Petitioner elevated the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Commission.
The latter issued its Resolution holding that the affidavit of adverse claim be denied
registration. TCT No.344936 registered in the name of Blue Chips Projects, Inc. was
cancelled and a new TCT was issued in favor of the purchaser Winmar Poultry Farms,
Inc. Petitioner A. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc. again sought the registration of an
affidavit of adverse claim.

ISSUE:
Whether or not notice of lis pendens and adverse claims are contradictory?

HELD:
NO. The Supreme Court held that the two remedies, notice of lis pendens and adverse
claim, are not contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one
automatically nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be considered
unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens, and not the
annotation of an adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled
without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim involved.

17
 RD OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL vs. ANGLO, SR.
G.R. No. 171804. August 5, 2015.

FACTS:
Alfredo V. de Ocampo (de Ocampo) sold parcels of prime sugar land to Anglo,
Sr. The Republic of the Philippines Bureau of Education (the Republic) claimed that the
parcels of prime sugar land were bequeathed to the Bureau of Education by the late
Esteban Jalandoni and due to this donation, they owned the lots. Despite the notices of
lis pendens caused by the Republic, Anglo, Sr. conveyed the lots to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation in exchange for shares of stock. Pursuant to the Order of the Regional Trial
Court, the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental wrote a letter to Oscar Anglo of
Anglo Agricultural Corporation requiring him to surrender the title. Thereafter, Anglo, Sr.
and Anglo Agricultural Corporation filed a Complaint for Recovery of Damages from the
Assurance Fund against the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental and the National
Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines before the RTC of Bacolod City, Negros
Occidental.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents Oscar Anglo, Sr. and Anglo Agricultural Corporation
are entitled to an award of damages from the Assurance Fund under Section 95 of PD
No. 1529?

HELD:
NO. Petitioners’ claim is not supported by the purpose for which the Assurance Fund
was established. The Assurance Fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the
harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title
to land. Petitioners did not suffer any prejudice because of the operation of this doctrine.
On the contrary, petitioners sought to avail of the benefits of the Torrens System by
registering the property in their name. Unfortunately for petitioners, the original owners
were able to judicially recover the property from them. That petitioners eventually lost
the property to the original owners, however, does not entitle them to compensation
under the Assurance Fund.

18
 DE GUZMAN vs. NATIONAL TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.
G.R. No. 143281. August 3, 2000.

FACTS:
Spouses Milambiling purchased a parcel of land situated in Antipolo, Rizal from
Sta. Lucia Realty. Before leaving for abroad, the spouses Milambiling entrusted the
Deed of Sale of the parcel of land they bought to one Belgica. Spouses Milambiling
learned from Belgica that a TCT of the said parcel of land had already been issued in
their names. Belgica committed to the Milambiling spouses that she will personally
deliver the title to them in Saudi Arabia. However, Belgica failed to do so. Urlan
Milambiling immediately called up his relatives in the Philippines and asked them to find
out from the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal what happened to their title. He
was informed that the Certificate of Title had indeed been transferred in their names but
was subsequently transferred to Spouses De Guzman. The Spouses returned to the
Philippines and filed an action against Spouses De Guzman.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Spouses De Guzman are entitled for recover from the Assurance
Fund?

HELD:
NO. Pursuant to the provision of the Land Registration Act, the following are the
persons entitled for recovery from the Assurance Fund: (1) any person who sustains
loss or damage provided (a) that there was no negligence on his part and (b) that the
loss or damage sustained was through any omission, mistake or malfeasance of the
court personnel, or the RD, his deputy, or other employees of the Registry in the
performance of their respective duties; or (2) any person who has been deprived of any
land or interest therein provided (a) that there was no negligence on his part; (b) that he
was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or interest therein; or by the
registration by any other person; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in any
certificate of owner’s duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in the register or other
official book or by any cancellation; and (c) that he is barred or in any way precluded
from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or interest therein, or claim upon
the same.

19
 RD OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL vs. ANGLO, SR.
G.R. No. 171804. August 5, 2015.

FACTS:
Alfredo V. de Ocampo (de Ocampo) sold parcels of prime sugar land to Anglo,
Sr. The Republic of the Philippines Bureau of Education (the Republic) claimed that the
parcels of prime sugar land were bequeathed to the Bureau of Education by the late
Esteban Jalandoni and due to this donation, they owned the lots. Despite the notices of
lis pendens caused by the Republic, Anglo, Sr. conveyed the lots to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation in exchange for shares of stock. Pursuant to the Order of the Regional Trial
Court, the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental wrote a letter to Oscar Anglo of
Anglo Agricultural Corporation requiring him to surrender the title. Thereafter, Anglo, Sr.
and Anglo Agricultural Corporation filed a Complaint for Recovery of Damages from the
Assurance Fund against the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental and the National
Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod
City, Negros Occidental.

ISSUE:
Whether or not claims will be allowed when the claimant is negligent?

HELD:
NO. Our property registration system corrects the information asymmetry by making
sure pertinent information about the property, such as its registered owner, or any
encumbrances made over the property, are of public record. Laws such as Presidential
Decree No. 1529 and its predecessor, Act No. 496, ensure that the registration of
property goes through a vetting process that is in rem and binds not only government
but the whole world. Without the indefeasibility of titles, purchasers will be forced to
conduct meticulous due diligence over every real property they are about to buy. Hence,
transaction costs of purchasing real property will increase, which will be detrimental to
commerce. However, the Torrens system is not infallible. It is possible that through
fraud or error, a person who is not the owner acquires a certificate of title over property.
The law thus created an Assurance Fund to address this possibility.

20
 REYES vs. SOLEMAR DEVELOPMENT CORP.
G.R. No. 129247 | 03 March 2006 | Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez

FACTS:
Petitioner-Spouses Reyes filed with the RTC of Makati a complaint against
respondent Solemar Development Corporation (Solemar), represented by its president,
Renato Tanseco. Petitioners alleged that they are the registered owners of the subject
property as evidenced by TCT No. 31798. Accordingly, they fenced the property and
posted two security guards to prevent trespassers from entering the premises. Renato
Tanseco, accompanied by police officers, employing force and intimidation, entered the
premises and demolished its perimeter fence. Petitioners thus prayed for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent respondents from ejecting them from the
property without any court order. In their Answer, respondents raised the defense that
they own the disputed property, asserting that petitioners’ title is of doubtful authenticity.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may file an action for compensation?

HELD:
NO. An action for compensation from the Assurance Fund must be filed against the
Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land is situated and the National
Treasurer as defendants when “such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or
for deprivation of land or any estate or interest therein arising wholly through fraud,
negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel, Register of
Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the registry in the performance of their
respective duties.” (Section 96, Presidential Decree No. 1529). If “such action is brought
to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or any interest therein arising
through fraud, negligence, mistake or misfeasance of persons other than court
personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or other employees of the registry,” the
action must be brought against the Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer, as well
as other persons as co-defendants.

21
 EAGLE REALTY CORP. vs. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 151424. July 4, 2008.

FACTS:
Eagle Realty, a company engaged in the real estate business, bought a parcel of
land from a certain Reyes in 1984 via a Deed of Sale. This Reyes acquired the land
from a certain Medina who earlier acquired the said land via surreptitiously entering a
false record in the records of the Land Registration Commission. Eventually, the true
owners of the said land, the de Leons, discovered that another title was fraudulently
issued to Medina over the same parcel of land. De Leon was able to have the said title
annulled as well as the TCT issued to Eagle Realty by virtue of the Deed of Sale.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Land Registration Administrator may file the case himself?

HELD:
YES. Under Section 6, P.D. 1529, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall exercise
supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds. It is well understood that
“supervision and control” includes the authority to act directly whenever a specific
function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate. As the public officer having
supervision and control over Registers of Deeds, the Commissioner of Land
Registration therefore also has the authority to file the action himself.

22
 ESTRELLADO vs. MARTINEZ
G.R. No. L-23847. November 18, 1925.

FACTS:
Defendant Proceso Martinez filed an application for the registration in the registry
of property of the subject land, in which application herein plaintiff, Vivencia Estrellado,
is not named. The defendant alleged in said application that he is the only and exclusive
owner of the aforesaid land. Among the persons to whom a copy of the notice given in
the registration case is sent by registered mail appears Eleuterio Estrellado. Then, an
order of general default was entered in the said registration case, except only as against
Pioquinto Larua. The court rendered its decision ordering the registration of the land
here in question in the name of the defendant Proceso Martinez. Plaintiff filed in said
registration case a motion praying for the review of the decree. The parties introduced
their respective evidence. Eventually, the court entered an order denying the review
prayed for in the motion on the grounds alleged in said order. A copy of said order is
attached hereto and made a part hereof. The parties finally agree to make a part of the
present agreement, wherein the herein defendant Proceso Martinez is applicant. Upon
this agreement the parties respectfully submit this case to the court for decision without
the necessity of introducing any further evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not recovery from person who caused the loss takes precedence
over claims against the Assurance Fund?

HELD:
YES. A person who is wrongfully deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein,
without negligence on his part, by the registration in error of another person as owner of
such land, may successfully maintain an action for damages, begun before the action is
barred, against the person in whose favor the decree of registration was issued,
notwithstanding such decree was not obtained by actual fraud and notwithstanding a
petition for review on the ground of fraud has been denied.
For an action against any person for damages for the wrongful deprivation of
land to prosper, it must be established, first, that the person is in reality wrongfully
deprived of his land by the registration in the name of another of the land by actual or
constructive fraud; second, that there was no negligence on his part; third, that he is not
barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of the land or
interest therein; and, fourth, that the action for compensation has not prescribed.

23
 TING HO, JR. vs. TENG GUI
G.R. No. 130115. July 16, 2008.

FACTS:
Felix Ting Ho, Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho and Lydia Ting Ho
Belenzo against their brother, respondent Vicente Teng Gui. The controversy revolves
around a parcel of land, and the improvements which should form part of the estate of
their deceased father, Felix Ting Ho, and should be partitioned equally among each of
the siblings. Petitioners alleged that their father Felix Ting Ho died intestate on June 26,
1970, and left upon his death an estate. According to petitioners, the said lot and
properties were titled and tax declared under trust in the name of respondent Vicente
Teng Gui for the benefit of the deceased Felix Ting Ho who, being a Chinese citizen,
was then disqualified to own public lands in the Philippines; and that upon the death of
Felix Ting Ho, the respondent took possession of the same for his own exclusive use
and benefit to their exclusion and prejudice.

ISSUE:
What is the effect of registration of grants and patents under Section 103?

HELD:
Under the law, a certificate of title issued pursuant to any grant or patent
involving public land is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title
issued to private lands in the ordinary or cadastral registration proceeding. The effect of
the registration of a patent and the issuance of a certificate of title to the patentee is to
vest in him an incontestable title to the land, in the same manner as if ownership had
been determined by final decree of the court, and the title so issued is absolutely
conclusive and indisputable, and is not subject to collateral attack.

24
 REPUBLIC vs. UMALI
G.R. No. 80687. April 10, 1989.

FACTS:
The land situated in Tanza, Cavite was originally purchased on installment from
the government by Florentina Bobadilla, who allegedly transferred her rights thereto in
favor of Martina, Tomasa, Gregorio and Julio, all surnamed Cenizal. Tomasa and Julio
assigned their shares to Martina, Maria and Gregorio. These three assignees then
purportedly signed a joint affidavit to support their claim that they were entitled to the
issuance of a certificate of title over the said land. On the basis of this affidavit, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources executed a sale certificate in favor of
the said affiants. A complaint for reversion was filed when the registered owners of the
land, following several transfers, were Remedios Micla, Juan Pulido, and Rosalina, Luz
and Enrique Naval. They asked to return the property to the State on the grounds of
forgery and fraud. In their answer, Pulido and the Navals denied any participation in the
joint affidavit and said they had all acquired the property in good faith and for value.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a registered public land patent is similar to a Torrens title?

HELD:
YES. The land being now registered under the Torrens system in the names of the
private respondents, the government has no more control or jurisdiction over it. It is no
longer part of the public domain or, as the Solicitor General contends—as if it made any
difference—of the Friar Lands. The subject property ceased to be public land when
OCT No. 180 was issued to Florentina Bobadilla in 1910 or at the latest from the date it
was sold to the Cenizals in 1971 upon full payment of the purchase price. As private
registered land, it is governed by the provisions of the Land Registration Act, now
denominated the Pro-perty Registration Decree, which applies even to the government.

25
 PADILLA, JR. vs. PHIL. PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOC.,
INC.
G.R. No. 141256. July 15, 2005.

FACTS:
Petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of the following real properties.
Respondent is a marketing cooperative which had a money claim against petitioner.
Respondent filed a civil case against petitioner for collection of a sum of money in the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City which the trial court rendered a decision in its favor
On November 28, 1989. The subject property lot was auctioned off to satisfy the
judgment, with respondent as the only bidder. Consequently, a certificate of sale was
executed in favor of respondent and the same was recorded in the Register of Deeds
on August 13, 1990. When petitioner failed to exercise his right of redemption within the
12-month period allowed by law, the court, on motion of respondent, ordered on
February 5, 1992 the issuance of a writ of possession for the sheriff to cause the
delivery of the physical possession of the properties in favor of respondent
Respondent filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to issue new titles over
the properties in its name, alleging that the Register of Deeds (RD) of Bago City would
not issue new titles (in respondent’s name) unless the owner’s copies were first
surrendered to him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the transfer of title in buyer’s name is part of the execution
proceedings?

HELD:
NO. As should be evident from Blancaflor, petitioner Padilla’s reliance on Section 6 of
Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is misplaced. The fact of levy and
sale constitutes execution, and not the action for the issuance of a new title. Here,
because the levy and sale of the properties took place in June and July of 1990,
respectively, or less than a year after the decision became final and executory, the
respondent clearly exercised its rights in timely fashion. Respondent alleges that it
resorted to filing the contested motion because it could not obtain new certificates of
title, considering that petitioner refused to surrender his owner’s duplicate TCTs. This
contention is incorrect. The proper course of action was to file a petition in court, rather
than merely move, for the issuance of new titles. This was the procedure followed
in Blancaflor by Sarmiento Trading which was in more or less the same situation as the
respondent in this case.

26
 REYES vs. TANG SOAT ING
G.R. No. 185620. December 14, 2011.

FACTS:
The controversy arose from a complaint for Enforcement of Easement and
Damages filed by MFR Farms, Inc. (MFR) against respondents. MFR complained of
respondents' commercial and industrial use of their property, and sought the
enforcement of the encumbrance contained in their title. After trial, the RTC granted
MFR's complaint, with the CA affirming with modification the said ruling. The decision of
the CA became final and executory upon motion of MFR; the RTC issued a Writ of
Execution. Pursuant thereto, the Branch Clerk of Court commanded the Sheriff of RTC
to execute the Decision. Sheriff Legaspi submitted a Sheriff's Report manifesting that he
served copy of the Writ of Execution and copy of the Notice to respondent, giving him
five days to comply with his obligations. However, he was told that Tang Soat Ing has
no more properties and the factory located in the compound is being leased to other
people. Sheriff Legaspi presented the Writ of Execution and the Notice of Levy on
Execution of Real Property to the Register of Deeds of Bulacan Province. The Notice of
Levy was inscribed on TCT
Sheriff Legaspi issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property. At the
public auction, MFR was declared as the highest bidder. Sheriff Legaspi issued a
Certificate of Salem which was registered with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan
Province. With respondents failing to exercise their right of redemption, MFR filed a
Motion asking the RTC to issue an order to cancel the TCT in the name of respondents,
and issue a new certificate of title in the name of MFR.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Reyes must institute a separate cadastral action?

HELD:
YES. Notwithstanding the validity of the execution sale and Reyes’ consolidation of
ownership over the subject property upon the lapse of the redemption period, we hold
that Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 contemplates the filing of a separate
and original action before the RTC, acting as a land registration court.

27
 LO17 CASES

28
 NEW DURAWOOD, CO., INC. vs. CA
G.R. No. 111732. February 20, 1996.

FACTS:
On February 14, 1990, a Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Lost Owners
Duplicate Certificates of TCT Nos. 140486; 156454 and 1404855. was filed in the RTC
of Rizal by petitioner-corporation, represented by its Branch Manager, Wilson Gaw.
Attached to said petition was an Affidavit of Loss dated December 31, 19906 of
respondent Orlando Bongat, one of the stockholders of petitioner-corporation. Then,
petitioner discovered that the original TCT Nos. N-140485, N-140486 and 156454 on
file with the Register of Deeds had been cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT Nos.
200100, 200101 and 200102 had been issued in the name of respondent Durawood
Construction and Lumber Supply, Inc. Petitioner found out about the reconstitution
proceeding in the respondent trial court. As such, petitioner filed a suit in the CA praying
for the annulment of the assailed order in LRC Case No. 91-924 penned by respondent
Judge. It also prayed for the cancellation of the new certificates (TCT Nos. 200100,
200101 and 200102). Respondent CA rendered the assailed decision. Hence, the
present recourse to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not court a petition for reconstitution is the proper remedy?

HELD:
NO. Private respondents tried to convince the Court that by their failure to locate
Francis Dytiongsee, they had no other recourse but to file a petition for reconstitution.
Sec. 107 of P.D. 1529, however, states that the remedy, in case of the refusal or failure
of the holder—in this case, the petitioner—to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate
of title, is a “petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds,”
and not a petition for reconstitution.

29
 PAZ vs. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 157367. November 23, 2011.

FACTS:
Petitioner brought a petition for the cancellation of OCT. The petition, ostensibly
made under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, impleaded the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic), Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC), and Filinvest Alabang, Inc. (FAI)
as respondents. The petition averred, among others, that the petitioner was the owner
of two parcels of land under OCT No. 684 and TCT No. 185552, which were registered
in the name of the Republic. FDC and FAI moved to dismiss the petition for cancellation
on the grounds that the dispute spawned by the Petition for cancellation of title is
litigable in an ordinary action outside the special and limited jurisdiction of land
registration courts. Also, the Petition is thus removed from the ambit of Sec. 108 of the
Property Registration Decree which requires, as an indispensable element for availment
of the relief thereunder, either unanimity of the parties or absence of serious
controversy or adverse claim. It authorizes only amendment and alteration of certificates
of title, not cancellation thereof.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 108 of P.D. 1529 is applicable to the present case?

HELD:
NO. Based on the provision, the proceeding for the amendment and alteration of
a certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven instances
or situations, namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests
have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any
error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the
certificate has been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been married, or,
registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs
or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a corporation, which owned registered
land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its
dissolution; and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of
title.

30
 BAGAYAS vs. BAGAYAS
G.R. Nos. 187308 & 187517. September 18, 2013.

FACTS:
On June 28, 2004, petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of sale and partition
before the RTC, claiming that Rogelio, Felicidad, Rosalina, Michael, and Mariel, all
surnamed Bagayas (respondents) intended to exclude her from inheriting from the
estate of her legally adoptive parents, Maximino Bagayas and Eligia Clemente, by
falsifying a DOAS purportedly executed by the deceased spouses Maximino and Eligia.
Said deed, bore the signature of Eligia who could not have affixed her signature thereon
as she had long been dead. By virtue of the same instrument, however, the Bagayas
brothers were able to secure in their favor TCT Nos. 375657 and 3756 over the subject
lands.
Rogelio claimed that after their parents had died, he and Orlando executed a
document denominated as Deed of Extrajudicial Succession over the subject lands to
effect the transfer of titles thereof to their names. Before the deed of extrajudicial
succession could be registered, however, a DOAS transferring the subject lands to
them was discovered from the old files of Maximino, which they used by "reason of
convenience" to acquire title to the said lands. The RTC dismissed the case.
Subsequently, petitioner filed twin petitions before the same RTC for the amendment of
TCT Nos. 375657 and 375658 to include her name and those of her heirs and
successors-in-interest as registered owners to the extent of one-third of the lands
covered therein.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may avail of the remedy provided under Section 108 of
PD 1529?

HELD:
NO. Petitioner cannot avail of the summary proceedings under Section 108 of PD 1529
because the present controversy involves not the amendment of the certificates of title
issued in favor of Rogelio and Orlando but the partition of the estate of Maximino and
Eligia who are both deceased. As held in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Valenzuela, the
prevailing rule is that proceedings under Section 108 of PD 1529 are summary in
nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clerical but
certainly not controversial issues. Relief under said legal provision can only be granted

31
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. This is now the controlling precedent, and
the Court should no longer digress from such ruling. Therefore, petitioner may not avail
of the remedy provided under Section 108 of PD 1529.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGAYTAY vs. GUERRERO

G.R. Nos. 140734 & 140745. September 17, 2009.

FACTS:
Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corporation (TTTDC) is the registered
owner of two parcels of land and it incurred real estate tax liabilities on the said
properties for the tax years 1976 to 1983. The City Government of Tagaytay offered the
properties for sale at a public auction. Being the only bidder, a certificate of sale was
executed in favor of the City of Tagaytay and was correspondingly inscribed on the titles
of the lands. The City of Tagaytay filed an unnumbered petition for entry of new
certificates of title in its favor before the RTC of Cavite. RTC granted the petition. The
TTTDC appealed to the CA. The subject properties were later purchased by Amuerfina
Melencio-Herrera and Emiliana Melencio-Fernando (Melencios) for the amount
equivalent to the taxes and penalties due to the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent may avail of the relief under Section 108 of PD
1529?

HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court stated that petitions under Section 75 and Section 108
of P.D. 1529 (formerly Sec. 78 and Sec. 112 of Act 496) can be taken cognizance of by
the RTC sitting as a land registration or cadastral court. Relief under said sections 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; otherwise, the case becomes
controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the
incident properly belongs

32
 ALMIRAÑEZ vs. DEVERA
G.R. No. L-19496. February 27, 1965.

FACTS:
Gaspara Devera sold to Julian Villabona, under a contract of sale with right to
repurchase, a parcel of land situated at Barrio Polo, Municipality of Mauban, Quezon,
which lot later became known as lot No. 1563 of the Cadastral Survey of Mauban.
Julian Villabona took possession of property and since then enjoyed the fruits there
from until he died. Julian Villabona died, and the land in question was inherited by his
son Primitivo Villabona. Upon the death of Primitivo Villabona, this land was inherited by
his daughter Nimfa Villabona. Nimfa Villabona sold the said land to the appellees-
spouses Silverio Almirañez and Isidra Villabona. Silverio Almiranez and his wife took
possession of the land upon their purchase from Nimfa Villabona who was in
possession of the same at the time of the sale.
Gaspara Devera had not repurchased the lot in question. The statement in
Original Certificate of Title No. O-1738 about the lien consisting of the sale with right of
repurchase in favor of Julian Villabona remained uncancelled.

ISSUE:
What does “unanimity of parties” refer to?

HELD:
Under Sec. 112, Act 496, by “unanimity among the parties” is meant the absence of serious
controversy between the parties in interest as to the title of the party seeking relief under said
section.

33
 CRISOLOGO vs. JEWN AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORP.
G.R. No. 196894. March 3, 2014.

FACTS:
This controversy stemmed from various cases of collection for sum of money
filed against So Keng Kok, the owner of various properties including the subject
properties, which were attached by various creditors including the petitioners in this
case. As a result, the levies were annotated on the back of their titles. Petitioners-
Spouses Crisologo were the plaintiffs in two collection cases before RTC against Robert
Limso, So Keng Koc, et. al. Respondent JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation was the
successor-in-interest of one Sy Sen Ben. The RTC rendered its decision wherein the
defendants in said case were directed to transfer the subject properties in favor of Sy
Sen Ben. The latter subsequently sold the subject properties to one Nilda Lam, who
sold the same to JEWM.
After a year, Spouses Crisologo prevailed in the separate collection case filed
before RTC against defendants.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Spouses Crisologo are indispensable parties in the case for
cancellation of lien?

HELD:
YES. In an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a
certificate of title, the persons considered as indispensable include those whose liens
appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: Section 108. 
Amendment and alteration of certificates.—No erasure, alteration or amendment shall
be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a
memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except
by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having
an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the
approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court
upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and
ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificates have arisen or been

34
created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or memorandum
thereon, or on any duplicate certificate; x x x or upon any other reasonable ground; and
the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and
may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a
memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and
conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper.

ERNESTO OPPEN, INC. vs. COMPAS

G.R. No. 203969. October 21, 2015.

FACTS:
The subject matter of the present case involves two parcels of land located in
Las Piñas City, previously registered in the name of PMMSI. The said properties were
levied upon pursuant to the decision rendered. Thereafter, the Notice of Levy in favor of
MBI was annotated at the back of the TCTs. Pursuant to the, EOI annotated its lien on
TCT No. S-100162. A certificate of sale was issued in its favor, and entered on TCT No.
S-100612. The said property was later sold in a public auction where EOI was the
highest bidder and the Final Deed of Sale was issued after the lapse of the redemption
period. Subsequently, EOI filed for the cancellation of PMMSI's title, which was granted.
Then, Compas filed a petition for the cancellation of TCT Nos. S-100612 and S-
100613 and for the issuance of new titles in his name.

ISSUE:
What distinguishes Section 2 from Section 108 of PD 1529?

HELD:
It is basic in law that the jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The jurisdiction of
regional trial courts in land registration cases is conferred by Section 2 of P.D. No.
1529. It expressly provides: Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction
of courts.—Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines
shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the
Torrens system. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and
interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with
power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with
two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in
applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes,
within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.

35
 The second paragraph of Section 108 provides that all petitions or motions, as
well as under any other provision of P.D. No. 1529 after original registration, shall be
filed in the original case in which the decree or registration was made.

NEW DURAWOOD, CO., INC. vs. CA

G.R. No. 111732. February 20, 1996.

FACTS:
On February 14, 1990, a Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Lost Owners
Duplicate Certificates of TCT Nos. 140486; 156454 and 1404855. was filed in the RTC
of Rizal by petitioner-corporation, represented by its Branch Manager, Wilson Gaw.
Attached to said petition was an Affidavit of Loss dated December 31, 19906 of
respondent Orlando Bongat, one of the stockholders of petitioner-corporation. Then,
petitioner discovered that the original TCT Nos. N-140485, N-140486 and 156454 on
file with the Register of Deeds had been cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT Nos.
200100, 200101 and 200102 had been issued in the name of respondent Durawood
Construction and Lumber Supply, Inc. Petitioner found out about the reconstitution
proceeding in the respondent trial court. As such, petitioner filed a suit in the CA praying
for the annulment of the assailed order in LRC Case No. 91-924 penned by respondent
Judge. It also prayed for the cancellation of the new certificates (TCT Nos. 200100,
200101 and 200102). Respondent CA rendered the assailed decision. Hence, the
present recourse to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not court a petition for reconstitution is the proper remedy in this
case?

HELD:
NO. Section 109 of said law provides, inter alia, that “due notice under oath” of the loss
or theft of the owner’s duplicate “shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his
behalf to the Register of Deeds x x x” (italics supplied). In this case, while an affidavit of
loss was attached to the petition in the lower court, no such notice was sent to the
Register of Deeds.

36
 OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MATAS
AM RTJ-92-836. August 2, 1995.

FACTS:
Judge Jesus Matas and Eduardo Torres, the OIC Clerk of Court, were accused
of violating RA 3019. Deputy Court Administrator Ernani Cruz Pano to recommend that
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) file administrative charges against the two
but said charges will be suspended pending the outcome of the criminal case. The said
recommendation was approved, thus the OCA filed with this Court an administrative
complaint charging the herein respondents with the violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-
graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint alleged that Judge Matas and Torres, in
connivance with one George Mercado, concealed from J.K. Mercado and Sons
Agricultural Enterprises his knowledge of the petition for issuance of new owner’s
duplicate copies as well as taking cognizance of the case which was allegedly outside
of the jurisdiction of his court, the land being in Kapalong, Davao.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was sufficient notice?

HELD:
YES. In the case at bar, the respective certificate of title of the properties in question on
file with the Register of Deeds are existing, and it is the owner’s copy of the certificate of
title that was alleged to have been lost or destroyed. Thus, it is Section 109 of P.D.
1529 which was approved on June 11, 1978 that becomes effective and is applicable, a
reading of which shows that it is practically the same as Section 109 of Act No. 496,
governing reconstitution of a duplicate certificate of title lost or destroyed. Consequently,
it is sufficient that the notice under Section 109 is sent to the Register of Deeds and to
those persons who are known to have, or appear to have, an interest in the property as
shown in the Memorandum of encumbrances at the back of the original or transfer
certificate of title on file in the office of the Register of Deeds. From a legal standpoint,
there are no other interested parties who should be notified, except those
abovementioned since they are the only ones who may be deemed to have a claim to

37
the property involved. A person dealing with registered property is not charged with
notice of encumbrances not annotated on the back of the title.

STRAIT TIMES, INC. vs. CA

G.R. No. 126673. August 28, 1998.

FACTS:
Private Respondent Regino Pealosa allegedly lost his owner’s duplicate of two
land titles (TCT Nos. T-3767 and T-28301). He filed a verified petition before the RTC-
Tacloban for the issuance of new owner’s duplicates. Thereafter, the RTC granted the
petition and declared the lost titles (T-3767 and T-28301) as null and void and ordering
the ROD-Tacloban City to issue to Strait times, new owner’s duplicates of said titles.
Said judgment became final and executory on June 7, 1994. Subsequently, on October
10, 1994, Strait Times caused a Notice of Adverse Claim to be annotated on T-28301.
Strait Times claimed that it bought the Lot covered by T-28301 from Conrado
Callera, who purchased it from Regino Penalosa in whose name T-28301 was
registered. Its duly authorized representative, Atty. Rafael Iriarte, had been in
possession of the said lot with the owner’s duplicate of T-28301 since August 14, 1984.
Strait Times thus seeks to annul and set aside the Order of the RTC with respect to the
issuance of a new owner’s duplicate of T-28301 on the ground of extrinsic fraud.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue a new title?

HELD:
YES. The point of petitioner is well-taken. In Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, the
Court ruled that if a certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of
another person, then the reconstituted title is void and the court that rendered the
decision had no jurisdiction. This was reiterated in Demetriou vs. Court of
Appeals and New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals. In the present case, it is
undisputed that the allegedly lost owner’s duplicate certificate of title was all the while in
the possession of Atty. Iriarte, who even submitted it as evidence. Indeed, private
respondent has not controverted the genuineness and authenticity of the said certificate
of title. These unmistakably show that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order the
issuance of a new duplicate, and the certificate issued is itself void.

38
 HEIRS OF SUSANA DE GUZMAN TUAZON vs. CA
G.R. No. 125758. January 20, 2004.

FACTS:
Private respondents filed with the RTC of the same court an action for Quieting of
Title and Nullification and Cancellation of Title praying that an order be issued directing
the Register of Deeds of Rizal to cancel the owners duplicate copy it has issued.
Petitioners averred that the private respondents had no cause of action against them.
The RTC issued an Order denying the petitioners prayer to dismiss the case as well as
the private respondents’ motion to transfer case. Defendants prayer for dismissal of this
case is likewise denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred when it found that the case filed by the petitioner
before the LRC was a petition for reconstitution?

HELD:
NO. Regardless of whether petitioners’ cause of action in LRC Case No. 93-1310 is
based on Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 or under Rep. Act No. 26, the same has no
bearing on the petitioners’ cause in this case. Precisely, in both species of reconstitution
under Section 109 of P.D. No. 1529 and R.A. No. 26, the nature of the action denotes a
restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its
original form and condition. The purpose of the action is merely to have the same
reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same form they were when the loss or
destruction occurred, and does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the
lost or destroyed title. It bears stressing at this point that ownership should not be
confused with a certificate of title. Registering land under the Torrens System does not
create or vest title because registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A
certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property
described therein. Corollarily, any question involving the issue of ownership must be
threshed out in a separate suit, which is exactly what the private respondents did when
they filed Civil Case No. 95-3577 before Branch 74.

39
 HEIRS OF RAGUA vs. CA
G.R. No. 88521-22. January 31, 2000.

FACTS:
These consolidated cases involve a prime lot consisting of 4,399,322 square
meters, known as the Diliman Estate, situated in Quezon City. On this 439 hectares of
prime land now stand the following: the Quezon City Hall, Philippine Science High
School, Quezon Memorial Circle, Visayas Avenue, Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife,
portions of UP Village and East Triangle, the entire Project 6 and Vasha Village,
Veterans Memorial Hospital and golf course, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Sugar Regulatory Administration, Philippine
Tobacco Administration, Land Registration Authority, Philcoa Building, Bureau of
Telecommunications, Agricultural Training Institute Building, Pagasa Village, San
Francisco School, Quezon City Hospital, portions of Project 7, Mindanao Avenue
subdivision, part of Bago Bantay resettlement project, SM City North EDSA, part of Phil-
Am Life Homes compound and four-fifths of North Triangle.1 This large estate was the
subject of a petition for judicial reconstitution originally filed by Eulalio Ragua in 1964,
which gave rise to protracted legal battles between the affected parties, lasting more
than thirty-five years.

ISSUE:
What is the purpose and effect of reconstitution?

HELD:
The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title
allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.” Consequently, as the
purported sources of the title to be reconstituted were dubious, the trial court erred in
making use of them for the reconstitution of the title in the name of Eulalio Ragua.

40
 ANGAT vs. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 175788. June 30, 2009.

FACTS:
Federico and Enriquita (sister of Federico) instituted LRC Case No. 1331 by filing
before the RTC a verified Petition for the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No.
T-4399. They presented the owners’ duplicate copy of said TCT in their possession.
Federico and Enriquita claimed that the subject property has been registered with the
Registry of Deeds of Cavite in their names, as the true and absolute owners thereof,
under TCT No. T-4399, covered by a certain plan PSU-91002. Federico and Enriquita
attached to their Petition for Reconstitution a photocopy of their owners’ duplicate
certificate of TCT No. T-4399.6 They also appended to the Petition, however, a
Certification. In compliance with the publication and posting requirements, the RTC
Order was published in the Official Gazette. The said Order was also posted on the
bulletin boards of the Provincial Capitol Building in Trece Martires City; the Municipal
Building of Ternate, Cavite; and the Barangay Hall where the subject property is
located.

ISSUE:
What is the nature and purpose of reconstitution proceedings?

HELD:
NO. The nature of the action for reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act
No. 26, entitled “An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens
Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed,” denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is
supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition. The purpose
of such an action is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper
proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. The same
Republic Act No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire
jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. As we held in Ortigas
& Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco, 277 SCRA 342 (1997), failure to comply with any of

41
these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings
null and void.

LAYOS vs. FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.

G.R. No. 150470. August 6, 2008.

FACTS:
The instant Petition originated from a Petition for Reconstitution of OCT No. 239
filed by the Spouses Layos. It is noted that the Spouses Layos instituted this
reconstitution case on the same day as their quieting of title case before the RTC. The
same allegations of souses Layos were retained. The Spouses Layos additionally
alleged that the Original Copy of the said title which used to be in the Office of the
Register of Deeds for the Province of Laguna appears to have been lost and/or
destroyed. The San Pedro RTC denied the Spouses Layos' Motion for Reconsideration
in an Order issued on 1 October 1998. Aggrieved, the Spouses Layos filed an appeal
with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, found no reversible error in the
ruling of the lower court dismissing the Spouses Layos' Petition for Reconstitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the requisites for an order for reconstitution may be issued?

HELD:
YES. Reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literally and within the
meaning of Republic Act No. 26 denotes restoration of the instrument which is
supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. For an order
of reconstitution to issue, the following elements must be present: 1) the certificate of
title has been lost or destroyed; 2) the petitioner is the registered owner or has an
interest therein; and 3) the certificate of title is in force at the time it was lost or
destroyed.

42
 REPUBLIC vs. CASIMIRO
G.R. No. 166139. June 20, 2006.

FACTS:
A Petition for the Reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 305917 of the
Quezon City Registry of Deeds was filed by herein respondent Pedro T. Casimiro.
According to the Petition, respondent is the registered owner and lawful possessor of
Lots No. 2 and 3 of subdivision plan. Respondent allegedly purchased the subject lots
from his father, Jose M. Casimiro, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. By virtue
of the said sale, TCT No. 35359, in the name of his father, was cancelled, and TCT No.
305917, in the name Casimiro was issued. TCT No. 305917 was among the certificates
of title lost and destroyed during the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall Building on 11
June 1988. During the hearing for the purpose of establishing the jurisdictional
requirements of the Petition, Solicitor Brigido Luna, from the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) and on behalf of herein petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appeared
before the RTC, Quezon City, interposing his objection to the Petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court erred in granting the petition for the reconstitution
of title?

HELD:
NO. In resolving petitions for judicial reconstitution of the original copy of a TCT,
great evidentiary weight is rightfully accorded to the owner's duplicate of the TCT, since
a duly-issued owner's duplicate certificate is, by all accounts, an exact reproduction of
the original copy of the TCT. Thus, among the sources enumerated in Section 3 of Rep.
Act No. 26 from which TCTs may be reconstituted, the owner's duplicate of the TCT is
primary. However, if the reconstitution of the original copy of the TCT shall be based on
the owner's duplicate of the said TCT, the owner's duplicate certificate itself must have
been presented before the court, and not a mere photocopy thereof. Such a
requirement is only reasonable so as to preclude any questions as to the genuineness

43
and authenticity of the owner's duplicate certificate, and bar the possibility of
reconstitution based on a fraudulent or forged owner's duplicate certificate.

PUZON vs. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.

G.R. No. 139518. March 6, 2001.

FACTS:
A fire in the office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City destroyed, among
others, the original copies of petitioner's TCT Nos. 240131 and 213611 issued by the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City, covering two lots with areas of 109,038 and 66,836
square meters respectively, both located in the District of Capitol, Quezon City. In
October 1993, petitioner filed before the RTC of Quezon City a Petition for the judicial
reconstitution of the two destroyed titles. The Petition, docketed as LRC Rec. No. Q-
6436 (93), was based on the owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs, which were in
petitioner's possession. The RTC Order, which served as the notice for the hearing of
the Petition for reconstitution, was published in two successive issues of the Official
Gazette.

ISSUE:
Whether or not notices to owners of adjoining lots are mandatory in the judicial
reconstitution of a title?

HELD:
NO. There is no question that in such actions, notices to adjoining owners and to the
actual occupants of the land are mandatory and jurisdictional. But in petitions for
reconstitution falling under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 where, as in the present case,
the source is the owner’s duplicate copy, notices to adjoining owners and to actual
occupants of the land are not required. When the law is clear, the mandate of the courts
is simply to apply it, not to interpret or to speculate on it.

44
 TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA
G.R. No. L-55771. November 15, 1982.

FACTS:
The case refers to the Petition for Reconstitution of title, original and owner’s
duplicate copy’ over lots 2 and 4 indicated in Plan II-4374 docketed as 504-P filed with
the Court of First Instance of Rizal by the Pascuals, claiming as the intestate heirs of the
deceased Manuela Aquial, The petition alleged that the copies of the said title were
salvaged after the World War. The petition was given due course and it was set for
hearing. Accordingly, publication of the petition in the Official Gazette was made and
notices of hearing were sent to the adjoining owners except Tahanan who is not only an
adjoining owner but also an owner and an actual occupant as the 9 hectares portion of
Tahanan’s land overlapped the land of the Pascuals registered in the name of their
predecessor Manuela Aquial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have a duty to know their adjoining property owners?

HELD:
YES. The Pascuals are duty-bound to know who are their actual adjacent boundary
owners on all sides and directions of their neighbors are in actual possession and
occupancy not only of property. They are charged with the obligation to inquire who
their actions of their own property but also of land adjacent thereto. This duty or
obligation cannot be ignored or simply brushed aside where the location or the
properties involved is a prime site for land development, expansion, suitable for
residential, commercial and industrial purposes and where every square inch of real
estate becomes a valuable and profitable investment. It is of public knowledge in the
community of Parañaque that “Tahanan Village” is a privately owned and occupied
residential subdivision, plainly visible to the general public by reason of the perimeter

45
fence or wall separating it from adjacent estates, the roads and streets therein and
leading thereto, the numerous home constructions and buildings going on, the visible
electrical, lighting and water supply installations, the presence of private security guards
thereat and the numerous signs and billboards advertising the estate as a housing
development owned and/or managed by petitioner Tahanan. It is preposterous to claim
that the area is public land.

REPUBLIC vs. PLANES

G.R. No. 130433. April 17, 2002.

FACTS:
Respondent Maximo Planes filed with the RTC a verified petition for
reconstitution of OCT No. 219 of the Registry of Deeds, Province of Cavite. However,
the Solicitor General, the LRA, the Register of Deeds and the Director of Lands did not
receive copies of the notice. The RTC issued another notice setting the hearing of the
petition. A copy of this notice was not received by the Solicitor General. Then, the
Solicitor General filed his Notice of Appearance as counsel for the Republic. When the
petition was heard, only Maximo Planes and his counsel appeared. Nobody opposed
the petition. Thus, the RTC issued an Order granting respondent’s petition for
reconstitution. Consequently, the Register of Deeds issued a reconstituted title.

ISSUE:
What should the notice to adjoining owners contain?

HELD:
NO. Republic Act No. 26 specifically provides the special requirements and mode of
procedure that must be followed before the court can properly act, assume and acquire
jurisdiction or authority over the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for. These
requirements and procedure are mandatory. In the case at bar, the source of the
petition for reconstitution was the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 219. Thus,
pursuant to Puzon vs. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., the petition is governed
by Section 10 of R.A. No. 26.

46
 ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. VALENZUELA
G.R. No. L-54094. August 30, 1982.

FACTS:
Petitioner Alabang is the registered owner of parcels of land located at Barrio
Cupang, Muntinlupa covered by 67 TCT’s. After consolidating the lands in 1969,
petitioner named it as Alabang Hills Village Subdivision wherein there are already
several homeowners who bought lots that are living inside the subdivision. Private
respondents Pascual filed a petition for reconstitution of title in 1977. They sought to
reconstitute a lost certificate of title, original and owner's duplicate copy (allegedly lost or
destroyed over 30 years earlier in the last World War II) and issued allegedly pursuant
to Decree No. 15170 dated March 4, 1914 in the name of their predecessor-in-interest,
deceased Manuela Aquial, covering two lots situated in Muntinlupa Rizal (same lots in
the Bernal Case).

ISSUE:
What is the effect of insufficient compliance with the requirements?

HELD:
NO. Patently, the provisions of Section 12 which enumerates mandatorily the contents
of the Petition for Reconstitution and Section 13 which similarly require the contents of
the Notice have not been complied with. In view of these multiple omissions which
constitute non-compliance with the above-cited sections of the Act, We rule that said
defects have not invested the Court with the authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the
case because the manner or mode of obtaining jurisdiction as prescribed by the statute
which is mandatory has not been strictly followed, thereby rendering all proceedings
utterly null and void. We hold that the mere Notice that ‘all interested parties are hereby
cited to appear and show cause if any they have why said petition should not be
granted’ is not sufficient for the law must be interpreted strictly; it must be applied

47
rigorously, with exactness and precision. We agree with the ruling of the trial court
granting the motion to amend the original petition provided all the requisites for
publication and posting of notices be complied with, it appearing that the amendment is
quite substantial in nature. As We pointed above, respondent Demetria Sta. Maria Vda.
de Bernal failed to comply with all the requirements for publication and posting of
notices, which failure is fatal to the jurisdiction of the Court.

CASTILLO vs. REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 182980. June 22, 2011.

FACTS:
Bienvenido filed a Petition for Reconstitution and Issuance of Second Owners
Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16755. (Facts of the case contain contents of
petition (exhibits, etc.). The RTC promulgated its Decision in favor of Bienvenido. The
RTC ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the original copy of OCT No. 16755,
and to issue another owner’s duplicate copy. The new original copy shall in all respects
be accorded the same validity and legal effect as the lost original copy for all intents and
purposes. Provided, that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exists in
the office of the Register of Deeds concerned.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Notice of Appeal. The OSG
stated that it was grave error for the RTC to order reconstitution despite absence of any
prayer seeking such relief in the petition and on the basis of a mere photocopy of TCT
No. T-16755. Counsel for Bienvenido filed a motion for early resolution. The appellate
court rendered its Decision which reversed decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the rules on liberal construction applies to land registration
cases?

HELD:
NO. Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply to land registration cases.
Indeed, to further underscore the mandatory character of these jurisdictional
requirements, the Rules of Court do not apply to land registration cases. In all cases
where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the
manner of obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is

48
mandatory, and must be strictly complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly void.
When the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority
over the whole case and all its aspects. All the proceedings before the trial court,
including its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for lack of jurisdiction.

DELA PAZ vs. CA

G.R. No. 120150. March 27, 2000.

FACTS:
Petitioner Adrian de la Paz is a holder of Letter of Patent No. 14132 issued by
the Patent Office on February 27, 1981 for his alleged invention Coco-diesel Fuel for
diesel engines and its manufacture. On March 7, 1983 petitioner filed a complaint with
the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch LXII, for infringement of patent with
prayer for payment of reasonable compensation and for damages against respondents
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Caltex Phils., Mobil Oil Philippines Inc, and Petrophil
Corporation. The trial court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss and ordered
petitioner to pay the additional docket.

ISSUE:
What is the difference between filing fees and docket fees?

HELD:
NO. In Lee vs. Republic, the court held that a declaration of intention to be a Filipino
citizen produced no legal effect until the required filing fee is paid. In Malimit
vs. Degamo, it was held that payment of the docket fee must be considered the real
date of filing for a petition for quo warranto and not the date it was mailed. In Magaspi
vs. Ramolete, it was reiterated that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of docket
fee regardless of the date of its filing in Court. The rule in Magaspi, however, has to be
distinguished from the first two cases in that, in Magaspi, what was at issue was not the
timeliness of the payment of the docket fee but the amount that had to be paid. Hence,
the Court ruled that the court may take cognizance of the case even if the docket fee
paid was insufficient.

49
 QUILALA vs. ALCANTARA
G.R. No. 132681. December 3, 2001.

FACTS:
Catalina Quilala executed a Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos in favor of
Violeta Quilala over a parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila. There appear on the
left-hand margin of the second page the signatures of Catalina Quilala and one of the
witnesses, and on the right-hand margin the signatures of Violeta Quilala and the other
witness. The deed of donation was registered with the Register of Deeds and, in due
course, TCT No. 17214 was cancelled and TCT No. 143015 was issued in the name of
Violeta Quilala. On November 7, 1983, Catalina Quilala died. Violeta Quilala likewise
died on May 22, 1984. Petitioner Ricky Quilala alleges that he is the surviving son of
Violeta Quilala. Meanwhile, respondents Gliceria Alcantara, Leonora Alcantara, Ines
Reyes and Juan Reyes, claiming to be Catalinas only surviving relatives within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity, executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of
estate, dividing and adjudicating unto themselves the above-described property. On
September 13, 1984, respondents instituted against petitioner and Guillermo T. San
Pedro, the Registrar of Deeds of Manila, an action for the declaration of nullity of the
donation inter vivos, and for the cancellation of TCT No. 143015 in the name of Violeta
Quilala.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the location of the signatures in the deed is merely directory?

HELD:
YES. Surely, the requirement that the contracting parties and their witnesses should
sign on the left-hand margin of the instrument is not absolute. The intendment of the law

50
merely is to ensure that each and every page of the instrument is authenticated by the
parties. The requirement is designed to avoid the falsification of the contract after the
same has already been duly executed by the parties. Hence, a contracting party affixes
his signature on each page of the instrument to certify that he is agreeing to everything
that is written thereon at the time of signing. Simply put, the specification of the location
of the signature is merely directory. The fact that one of the parties signs on the wrong
side of the page does not invalidate the document. The purpose of authenticating the
page is served, and the requirement in the above-quoted provision is deemed
substantially complied with.

ALEMAN vs. DE CATERA

G.R. No. L-13693. March 25,1961.

FACTS:
De Catera is and was the owner and operator of several passenger trucks. One
of her trucks was the "Catera No. 5." One morning, said passenger truck fell into the
ditch because it was over speeding the driver was trying to overtake another truck.
Aleman and her son who at that time were on the lawn in front of their house were hit by
the said truck thereby causing the instantaneous death of the son and the injury of
Florentina Aleman. Civil case No. 2969 is for the recovery of damages instituted by
Florentina Aleman and her husband Federico Real for the death of their son and for the
injury of Florentina Aleman. Two of the passengers of the aforesaid truck were killed as
a result of the mishap. The Southern Motors, Inc. filed with the provincial sheriff a third-
party claim to the bus.

ISSUE:
Whether or not herein appellees have a better right on the mortgage over the
appellants?

HELD:
NO. A chattel mortgage over a motor vehicle, to be binding upon third persons, should
not only be registered in the chattel mortgage registry in the Registry of Deeds, but, also
recorded in the corresponding Motor Vehicles Office as required by section 5(e) of the
Revised Motor Vehicle Law. A cHattfel mortgage over a vehicle not recorded in the
Motor Vehicles Office cannot prevail over the sale of the same vehicle which was duly.
recorded in the Motor Vehicles Office,

51
 A. DORONILA RESOURCES DEV., INC. vs. CA
G.R. Nos. L-42956-57. January 12, 1988.

FACTS:
Blue Chips Projects, Inc. is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in
Rizal and covered by TCT No. 344936. Blue Chips purchased said property from Purita
Landicho, the lawful registered owner. Then, petitioner-appellant A. Doronila Resources
Development Inc. availed of the remedy of lis pendens, the same having been
annotated on TCT No. 344936. Petitioner filed an affidavit of adverse claim for
registration with the Register of deeds of Rizal on the ground that the property covered
by the aforesaid title registered in the name of Blue Chips is a portion of a big parcel of
land which was purchased by petitioner corporation from Alfonso Doronila. The Register
of Deeds of Rizal denied the registration of the affidavit of the said adverse claim.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of a
certificate of title precludes the subsequent registration on the same or successor
certificate of title of an adverse claim.

HELD:
NO. The Supreme Court held that the remedies of notice of lis pendens and
adverse claims are not contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the
existence of one automatically nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be
considered unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens, and not
the annotation of an adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled
without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim involved.

52
53