AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS 1. Importance of the Subject a. Man - Land Ratio b. Land as a finite resource II. GOVERNINING LAWS

contested lots, the value of which does not exceed P100,000.00 for MTC's and P200,000.00 for METC's. IV. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION


Original Registration under Sec 14, Pd 1529 Who may apply: A.) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. In Republic vs CA and Corazon Naguit GR No 144057, Janurary 17, 2005, the Supreme Court held that: "Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time of application for registration of title is filed." "If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property, hence, the need to preserve its ownership is the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith." "However, if the property has already been classified as alieanable and disposable, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property." "There are no material differences between Sec 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree and Sec 48 (b) of the Public Land Act. True, the Public Land Act does refer to "agricultural lanf of the public domain," while the Property Registration Decree uses the term "Alianable and Disposable lands of public domain." It must be noted though that the Constitution declares declares that "alienable lands of public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Clearly, the subject lands under Sec 48 (b) of the Public Land Act and Sec 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are of the same type."


PD 1529 otherwise known as "The Property Registration Decree". Approved June 11, 1978 codified and incorporated the following laws related ti property registration: a. Act 496, The Land Registration Act b. Commonwealth Act 141, The Public Land Act c. Act 2259, The Cadastral Act d. Act 3344, System of Registration for Unregistered Lands e. Act No. 1508, as amended, The Chattel Mortgage Law f. Republic Act No. 26, REconstitution of Original Certificates of Title g. PD 27, Emancipation Patents, Land Reform Law

2. The Civil Code Provision (Articles 708 - 711) Title IX a. Art. 708. The Registry Property has for its object the inscription or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and other rights over immovable property. b. Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons. c. Art. 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those who have a known interest in ascertaining the status of the immovables or real rights annotated or inscribed therein. d. Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription or annotation, as well as the form, effects, and cancellation of inscriptions and annotations, the manner of keeping the books in the Registry, and the value of the entries contained in said books, the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and other special laws shall govern. THE TORRENS SYSTEM 1. The Legal Basis and Nature (Sec 2, PD 1529) Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. - Judicial proceedings for the registration og lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.

B.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws. "Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least 30 years. With such conversion, such property may now fall within the comtemplation of "Private Lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession being open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree" (Republic vs CA and Naguit) C.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws. Accretion is the slow and hardly perceptible accumulation of soil deposits that the law grants to the riparian owner. (Binalay vs Manolo, 195 SCRA 374) D.) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided by law. 2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Title under Sec 48 (b) of CA 141. Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provision of this chapter. The period to avail of this provision has been extended to Dec 31, 2020 pursuant to RA 9176 , approved Nov 13, 2002 with the limitation that the area applied for should not exceed 12 hectares. 3. Cadastral Act, Ac 2259 (Involuntary Proceedings) Compulsory proceedings are premised on the presumption under the Regalian Doctrine. That all Lands of whatever classifications belong to the

2. Purpose and meaning of the Torrens System of Registration. a.) The real purpose of the system is to quiet title of land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the courts, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa", to avoid the possibility of losing his land. (Legarda vs. Saleeby 31 Phl 590) b.) The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens Certificate Title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of the facts and circumtances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. (Traders Royal Bank vs CA 315 SCRA 190) 2. Jurisdiction a. Regional Trial Court Courts of First Instance (RTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interest 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. (Sec 2, PD 1529) b. Pursuant to Sec 34 of Batas Pambansa 129, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Order No 64-93 dated April 21, 1993, authorizing METC's, MTCC's and MTC's to hear and decide, Cadastral or Land Registration cases covering Lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or



public domain. Once instituted in court, all private claims to land are open to question and it is to the public interest that such private claims be settled and adjudicated. 4. Administrative Method Free Patent, Homestead and Sale Provisions A.) Whenever lands of the public domain are disposed of by the DENR through free patent, homestead and sales, they shall be brought under the operation of the Torrens System. Thus Sec 103 of PD 1529, states: "Whenever public lanf is by the Government alienated, granted, or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be registered like other deeds and conveyance whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee." B.) Emancipation Patent or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) Whenever a tenant or farm worker is issued a patent, the same shall also be transmitted to the Register of Deeds for registration under Sec 104 and 105 of PD 1529 and the issuance of the corresponding Certitficate of Title, this bringing the land under the operation of the Torrens System. C.) Indefeasilibility of a title obtained through thr administrative method. An original certificate of title issued on the basis of a patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a judicial proceeding and becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of patent. (Heirs of Gregorio Tingco vs Heirs of Jose Alinaias, 168 SCRA 198) V. STEPS IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE 1. Survey - In Director of Lands vs. Reyes, et al, 68 SCRA 177 -182. The SC ruled: "The applicant is not relieved from submitting in evidence the original plan approved by the Director of Lands as required by law. One of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens System is the absolute certainty of the identity of a registered land. Consequently, the primary purpose of the said requirements is to fix the exact or definite identity of the land as shown in the plan and technical description." 2. Application - Discussed earlier as to where to file. 3. Setting the Date of Initial Hearing Not earlier than 45 days nor more than 90 days from the date of the order (Sec 23, PD 1529) 4. Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA 5. Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of Initial Hearing 6. Publication, registed mail and posting (Sec 3, Pd 1529) " Sec 23 states that publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court. However, in Director of Lands vs. CA (276 SCRA 276-287) the SC ruled that the publication in a newspaper of general circulation is equally a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. "The elementary norms of due process require that before the claimed property is taken from the concerned parties and registered in the name of the applicant. The said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose. 7. Opposition Shall be filed by any person who claims the land or any interest therein. 8. Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence. A. General Default B. Default Order is entered

C. All applicants must overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered form part of the public domain. (Republic vs CA and Naguit

D. Tax declarations when coupled with proof of actual possession are strong evidence of ownership (Gonzaga vs CA SCRA 327) E. A foreign national may apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines
(Republic vs CA and Lapiña, 235 SCRA 567)

F. A private corporation may apply for judicial confirmation of title to public agricultural land because if a price of land of the public domain has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for a period prescribed by law, the land after the lapse of said period Ipso Jure ceases to form part of the public domain and becomes private property, thus removing it from the ambit of the constitutional prohibition (Republic vs CA 155 SCRA 344) G. Spanish Titles - PD 892, effective Feb 16, 1976, invalidated all Spanish titles and declared that they can no longer be used as evidence of land ownership. They shall then be treated as unregistered lands.

H. Judgment - Shall become final after 15 days from notice, there can be no execution of judgment pending appeal in land registration proceedings. 9. Decree of Registration for the Land to be issued by the Administrator, LRA 10. Original Certificate of Title The land Registration Authority has devised a form where the decree and the original certificate of title are embodied in the same document.

VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Rules, principles, doctrines, and maximes of the Torrens system which were culled from landmark decisions of the highest court on actual cases as arranged by Prof. Gregorio Bilog in his book, "Land Title and Deeds", 2005 Ed. A. Best Evidence of Ownership - A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best evidence of ownership of the land described therein.
(See Vilanueva vs CA, 198 SCRA 482 Ching vs CA, 181 SCRA 9, Heirs of George Bofill vs CA, 237 SCRA 451, Halili vs National Labor Relations Commissions, 257 SCRA 174, Lee Tek Sheng vs CA, 292 SCRA 544)

B. Notice to the Whole World - A torrens title gives notice to the whole world; or a Torrens title bind the whole world.
(See Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484, National Grains Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380, Ching vs Malaya, 153 SCRA 412, People vs Reyes, 175 SCRA 597)

The issuance of certificate of title is a constructive notice thereof to all persons. (Serna vs CA, 308 SCRA 527, 529) Registration of a deed sale in the Registry of Deeds constitutes constuctive notice thereof to the whole world.
(See Calalang vs ROD of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215, People vs Pacificador, 354 SCRA 310)

No one can plead ignorance of the registration. (Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,
Jacob vs CA, 244 SCRA 189)

C. Unregistered Claims - A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered on the title.
(See PD 1529 , Sec 44; Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647)

All claims and liens of whatever character existing against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title are barred, if not noted on said certificate The registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of Title and the subsequent purchaser for value and in good faith of registered land shall hold the certificate free from all liens and encumbrances, except those noted in said certifcate and those specified by law.
(See PD 1529 Sec 44 and 46, Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647, Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corp vs Cañada, 165 SCRA 207; Ferre-Lopez vs CA 150 SCRA 393; Cureg vs IAC, 177 SCRA 313, Aldecoa and Co vs Warner Barns & Co, 30 Phil 209; Snyder vs Fiscal of Cebu and Avila. 42 Phil 766)



D. Indefeasible - A Torrens certificate of title services as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose names appear therein.
( See Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160, Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358, Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321, Ortegas vs Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 6356, Jacob vs CA, 266 SCRA 189)

The Torrens system only protects a title holder in good faith, and cannot be used as shield for fraud and chicanery. Deceit is not to be countenanced; duplicity is not to be rewarded. (Philippine Commercial &
Industrial Bank vs Villalva, 48 SCRA 31)

The Torrens title cannot cover up frauds. (Adille vs. CA, 157 SCRA 672) I. Forgery - Any registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument shall be null and void (PD 1529 Sec 23) A forged instrument may become the "root of a valid title". (Torres vs CA, 186
SCRA 672)

Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomes incontrovertible or indefeasible after one year from the entry of the decree if registration.
**See PD 1529, Sec 32 Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215 Reyes and Nadres vs Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil 791 Jacob vs Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189 Trinidad vs IAC, 204 SCRA 524 Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321 Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Association, Inc, vs CA, 254 SCRA 220 Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160 Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358 Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 635 Republic vs De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267 Heirs of Simplicio Santiago vs Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, 404 SCRA 193

A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger.
(See Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489; De la Cruz vs Fabie, 35 Phil 14; Roman Catholic Bishop vs Philippine Railway, 49 Phil. 546)

The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title cannot be applied where the owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same interest in a realty. (Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672) J. Loss -As between two innocent persons, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss(See: Legarda
vs CA, 280 SCRA 642; Cabuhat vs CA, 366 SCRA 176; Tomas vs. Tomas, 98 SCRA 280; Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 315 SCRA 190)

E. A Torrens Title is Imprescriptible
(See PD 1529, Sec 47; Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12)

No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the unregistered owner shall be acquried by prescription or adverse possesion.
See: PD 1529, Sec 17 Viacrucis vs CA, 44 SCRA 176 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611 Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133 Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 Rivera vs. CA, 244 SCRA 218

As between two persons, both of them whom are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights. (Baltazar vs. CA, 168 SCRA 354; Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA

K. Priority of Rights - "Prior tempore potior jure" -He who is first in time is preferred in right. The act of registration in the Registry of Deeds shall be the operative act to convey or affect the lanf insofar as third persons are concerned. L. Double Titles. Where two certificates of title include the same land, the certificate that is earlier in date prevails. (Garcia vs CA, 95 SCRA 380) M. Presumptions: Regular and Valid - Torrens title presumed to have been issued regularly and legally. (Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65, Ching vs. Malaya, 153
SCRA 412; Ofrecio vs. Lising, 159 SCRA 366, Republic vs. Umali, 171 SCRA 647; People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597, Bishop vs. CA, 208 SCRA 636)

The owner of the land registered under the Torrens System cannot lose it by prescription
See: Bishop vs CA, 208 SCRA 636 Ruvera vs CA, 244 SCRA 218 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 Umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611 Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133 Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12

A strong presumption exists that a Torrens title is regularly issued and that it is valid. (Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65) A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued regularly and legally, unless contradicted and overcome by clear, convincing, strong and irrefutable proof. More than merely preponderant evidence is required.
(Ramos vs. CA, 112 SCRA 542)

F. Integrity of Titles -The integrity of the Torrens System must be protected. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Staed differently, an innocent purchaser for value, relying on a Torrens title issued, is protected. G. Not Subject to Collateral Attack - A certfificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
See. PD. 1529. Sec. 48; See also National Grains Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380; Tan vs. Philippines Banking Corp., 355 SCRA 292; Windows and Orphans Association, Inc. vs CA, 201 SCRA 165; Toyota Motor Phils. Corp vs CA, 216 SCRA 236)

Good Faith - The presumption is that the transferee of registered land is not aware of any defect in the title of the property he purchased. (Tajonera vs CA,
103 SCRA 467)

N. Reliance on the Title -Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore.
(See Halili vs Court of Industrial Relations, 257 SCRa 174; Kho vs CA, 214 SCRA 329; Legarda vs CA, 208 SCRA 642; Ibarra vs. Ibarra, Sr, 156 SCRa 616)

One who deals with properly registered under the Torrens System need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title. He is charge with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.
(Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)

H. Fraudulent Registration -The person in whose name the land is fraudulently registered holds it as a mere trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey the properry and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. (Pajarillo
vs IAC, 176 SCRA 340)

A Torrens title cannot be used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the expense of another. (Vda. De Recinto vs Inciong, 77 SCRA 196;
Legarda and Prieto vs Saleeby, 31 Phil 590)

Exception: This principle does not apply when the party has acual knowlege of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. One who falls withing the exception can neither be dominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a puchaser in good faith. (Domingo vs.
Roces, 401 SCRA 197)

The Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith.
(Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431)

An innocent purchaser for value has every right to rely on the correctness of the title. (A.D. Guerrero vs. Juntilla, 173 SCRA 572; Gevero vs IAC, 189 SCRA



He is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title on its face indicates, in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. (National Grains Authority vs. IAC, 157
SCRA 380; Duran vs. IAC 138 SCRA 489)

Intrinsic Fraud -refers to acts of a party in a litigation during trial which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did not prevent a fair and just determination of the case. (Sterling Investment Corp vs Ruiz, 30 SCRA 318) C. The title has not passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. 5. Action of Reconveyance Sec 96 of PD 1529 states: "that nothing in this decree shall be construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have againnst any person for such loss or damage or deprivation (of land or of any estate or interest therein) without joining the National Treasurer as partydefendant." A. Grounds: 1. Fraud 2. Implied or Constructive Trust 3. Void Contract B. When to Avail 1. On the ground of fraud - 4 yrs from discovery 2. Implied Constructive Trust presribes in 10 years C. The period is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the original certificate of title. D. If the party is in actual possession of the property, the action does not prescribe. 6. Action for Damages. If the property has been passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the aggrieved party may bring an ordinary action for damages against the applicant. (Sec 32, PD 1529) 7. Action for Compensation from Assurance Fund. Any person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest byb reason of the operation of the Torrens System may file an action for compensation against the Assurance Fund. (Sec 93 and 93 of PD 1529) VIII. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS 1. The act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.

Where the title is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on the title. Where innocent third persons relying on the correctness of the certificate of title issued, acquired rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate for that would impair public confidence in the certificate of title, otherwise everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens System would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or irregularly issued by the court. A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the certificate of title and in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to lock beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of said certifcate. A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of inquiring further, except when he has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when he has knowledge of a defect of the lack of title of the other party or of sufficients to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation.
See Sandoval vs CA, 260, SCRA 283 State Investment House, Inc. vs CA, 254 SCRA 368 Tiburcio vs PHHC, L-13479, October 31, 1959 Capitol Subd., Inc. vs Province of Negros Occidental, 7 SCRa 60 Luz vs Manipon, 381 SCRA 788

Where the Torrens title is in the name of the vendor, the vendee has the right to rely on what appears on the title; and, in the absence of anything to arouse suspicion, the vendee has no obligation to look beyond the title.
(See: Pino vs CA, 198 SCRA 434 Centeno vs CA, 139 SCRA 545 Chit, Sr. vs Benelda Estate Dev Corp, 353 SCRA 424 Republic vs CA, 306 SCRA 81

O. Titles Derived from a Void Title are Also Void If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent certificates of title derived therefrom are also void because of the truism that the "spring cannot rise higher than its source."
See De Santos vs IAC, 157 SCRA 295 Calalang vs Register od Deeds of Quezon city, 231 SCRA 88 Mathay vs CA, 295 SCRA 556

2. Entry along produces the effect of registration whether the transaction is voluntary or involuntary as long as registrant complies with all the requirements. (DBP vs RD of Nueva Ecija, 162 SCRa 450) 3. The production of the owner's duplicate whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration shall be conclusive authority from the registration shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration. (Sec 53 PD 1529) 4. The "Mirror Principle" A purchaser is not required to explore beyond what the record in the registry indicates on its face, in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his title thereto. (Chu Sr vs Benelda Estate Dev. Corp,
353 SCRA 424)

This truism is in accord with the Latin maxim, "Nemo potest pius juris ad allum transferre quam ipse habet," "No one can transfer a greater right to another than he himself has."

VII. REMEDIES OF PERSONS AGGRRIEVED IN A LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS 1. New Trial - Rule 37, Rules of Court 2. Relief from Judment - Sec 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court 3. Appeal - Sec 33 PD 1529 provides that judgment or orders of the court in land registration cases are appeallable to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions. 4. Petition of Review - Sec 32 of PD 1529

5. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required and the execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed equivalent to delivery. (Power and Ind.
Corp. vs CA, 274 SCRA 59)

6. Even if only part of the property has been sold or alienated within the prohibited period of 5 years such alienation is sufficient cause for the reversion of the whole estate to the state (Republic vs CA 281, SCRA 639) IX. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS 1. ADVERSE CLAIM

A. Petition may be filed within one year from the entry of such decree of registration. B. On the ground of Actual or Extrinsic Fraud. Extrinsic Fraud -refers to any fraudulent act of the successful pary in litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated party whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.

Even after the lapse of thirty days as provided under Sec. 70 of PD 1529, an adverse claim may be cancelled only upon order of the court. (Sajonas
vs CA, 258 SCRA 79)

2. LIS PENDENS A notice of lis pendends is not confined only to cases involving the title to or possesion of real property, but applies 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. (Viewmaster vs Maulit, GR
136283, Feb 29, 2000)

" A notation of lis pendends neither affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a lien."

3. Surrender of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in Involuntary Dealings. Sec. 107 of PD 1529 provides: "Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divest the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds." Likewise, Sec. 80 of PD 1529 states: "Every court rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting registered land shall, upon petition of said plaintiff, order the parties before it to execute for registration any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to the judgment, and shall require the registered owner to deliver his duplicate certificate to the plaintiff or to the Register of Deeds to be cancelled or to have memorandum annotated upon it." In the case of (Toledo-Bañaga vs CA, 302 SCRA 331) The Supreme Court held: "Petitioners otgher contention that the execution of the final and executory decision - which is to issue title in the name of private respondent - cannot be compelled by mandamus because of the formality that the registered owner first surrenders her duplicate Certificate of Title for cancellation per Sec. 80 of PD 1529 cited by the Register of Deeds, bears no merit. In effect, they argue that the winning party must wait execution until the losing party has complied with the formality of surrender of the duplicate title. Such preposterous contention borders on the absurd and has no place in our legal system." 4. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortage RA 8791, otherwise know as "The General Banking Law, approved on May 23, 2000 modified the right of the morgagor to redeem the property in an extrajudicial forclosure under the following conditions: A. The mortgagor is a juridcal entity B. The property has been mortgaged in favor of a bank, quasi-bank or trust entity C. The forclosure is done extra-judicially If the forgoing conditions are present, the period of redemption will now be as follows: “The mortgagor shall have the right to redeem the property until but not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale, with the applicable Register of Deeds which is no case shall be more than three months after forclosure, whichever is earlier." Stated otherwise, the maximum period of redemption under this new law is three months, and no longer 1 year as provided under RA 3135. Thus, considering that the period of redemption is reckoned after the date of the forclosure or until the registration of the certificate of sale "Whichever is earlier", this period may be shorter than 3 months as when the buyer, for instance, may cause the registration of the certificate of sale immediately after the forclosure sale. X. RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL Sec. 110 of PD 1529, abrograted the procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates provided under RA 26/ However, RA 6732 approved on June 8, 1989 allowed once again the administrative reconstitution of original copies of certificates of title, but only when it is lost or destroyed due to fire, flood, and other force majeure. Provided further that the number of lost or damaged certificates should at least be 100% and the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged be less than 500.00