G.R. No.

L-5599             March 22, 1910

MAURICE F. LOEWENSTEIN, plaintiff,

vs.
H. C. PAGE, registrar of deeds of the subprovince of Benguet, defendant (Register of
Deeds).

Bruce and Lawrence, for plaintiff.

Office of the Solicitor General Harvey, for defendant (Register of Deeds).

JOHNSON, J.:

An original action in this court for the writ of mandamus against the defendant (Register of
Deeds) to compel him to register a certain certificate of title in accordance with the provisions of
section 122 of Act No. 496 of the Philippine Commission.

The petition presented by the plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) is as follows:

1 That plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) is a citizen of the United States of America, of age,

and a resident of the city of Manila, Philippine Islands; that defendant (Register of
Deeds) is, and at all times herein referred to has been, an officer of the Government of the
Philippine Islands, to wit, the acting register of deeds of the subprovince of Baguio in
said subprovince.

II That plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN), in accordance with the laws of the Philippine

Islands, has located a mineral claim on public and unoccupied land in the barrio of Bua,
municipality of Itogon, subprovince of Benguet, has complied with all the requirements
of law precedent to the issue of a patent in favor of plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN), and that
a patent for the said mineral claim has been issued by the Government of the Philippine
Islands for said mineral claim in the name of plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) and filed by the
official who issued said patent with defendant (Register of Deeds) as register of deeds of
the subdivisions of Benguet; that the said mineral claim is known and recorded as the
"Ultimo Mineral Claim," and is fully and adequately described in the aforesaid patent.

III That plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) has paid to defendant (Register of Deeds) P6,
Philippine currency, as fees for the issue of certificate of title in favor with the aforesaid
patent, and has demanded of defendant (Register of Deeds) that the latter issue such
certificate; that defendant (Register of Deeds) neglects and refuses to issue such
certificate, unless and until plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) shall pay to defendant (Register
of Deeds) one-tenth of one per cent of the value of plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN)'s
aforesaid mineral claim for an assurance fund and shall file with defendant (Register of
Deeds) sworn declarations of three disinterested persons that the value fixed by plaintiff
(LOEWENSTEIN) is fair; that plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) has refused to pay any sum
whatever for an assurance fund and has refused to file such sworn declarations or to fix a
value, and upon such refusal has again demanded of defendant (Register of Deeds) that
he issue a certificate as aforesaid; that defendant (Register of Deeds) thereupon refused
 and continues to refuse and neglect to issue to plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) a certificate of
title for the mineral claim aforesaid.

IV That plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary courts of law, other than a writ of mandate to be issued to defendant (Register of
Deeds) commanding him forthwith to enter a certificate of title in the name of plaintiff
(LOEWENSTEIN) for the aforesaid mineral claim and issue an owner's duplicate
therefor the plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN).

Wherefore, plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) prays that judgment be entered granting a

peremptory order against defendant (Register of Deeds), commanding him, immediately
after the receipt of such order, to enter a certificate of title in accordance with the
provisions of section 122 of Act No. 496 in the name of plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) for
the "Ultimo Mineral Claim," as described in the patent issued in plaintiff
(LOEWENSTEIN); and plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) further prays that he be given
judgment against defendant (Register of Deeds) for his costs herein.

To this petition the defendant (Register of Deeds) presented a demurrer, basing the same upon
the following reasons:

1 Because it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) has not
done all that is required by the provisions of the Land Registration Act to entitle him to
demand the registration of the patent and the entry of the certificate of title and the
issuance of an owner's duplicate certificate under section 122 of said Act.

2 Because it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) has refused
to pay the one-tenth of one per centum of the fair value of the land or any sum whatever
for the assurance fund, which by section 99 of said Land Registration Act, as amended, is
expressly made payable to the register of deeds upon the original registration of any land
under said Act.

3 Because it does not appear from the complaint that the defendant (Register of Deeds)
has unlawfully neglected or refused to perform any at which the law specially enjoins as
a duty resulting from his office as register of deeds, or that he has unlawfully excluded
the plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) from the use and enjoyment of any right to which he is
entitled, and it does not appear that the duty is specially enjoined upon the register of
deeds to register a patent to public land and enter a certificate of title thereto and issue an
owner's duplicate certificate without the payment to him of the one-tenth of one per
centum of the assessed or fair value of the real estate at the time of such original
registration.

The petitioner claims that he has complied with all the requirements of law precedent to the
issuance of a patent in his favor and that a patent for a mineral claim has been issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands to the plaintiff (LOEWENSTEIN) and has been filed by
the official who issued said patent with the defendant (Register of Deeds) as register of deeds of
the subprovince of Benguet. This patent was filed with the register of deeds of the subprovince
of Benguet for registration in accordance with the provisions of section 122 of Act No. 496. It is
alleged by the petitioner that the register of deeds refused to register such patent unless and until
he should pay the fee provided for in section 99 of Act No. 496. The question presented to the
court by the demurrer is whether or not it is the plain and specific duty of the register of deeds to
register said patent without demanding the fee provided for in section 99 of said Act No. 496.

Section 37 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, provides how persons, associations, or
corporations may secure patents to mineral claims.

Section 122 of Act No. 496 (which Act is known as the Act providing for the registration of
lands under the Torrens system) provides that "Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands
belonging to the Government of the United States or to the Government of the Philippine Islands
are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same
shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall become registered lands."

Section 73 of Act No. 926 provides that patents to public lands shall be issued "in the name of
the United States and the Philippine Government under the signature of the Civil Governor; but
such patents (patents to public lands) or certificates shall be effective only for the purposes
defined in section 122 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496), and the actual conveyance o the
land shall be effected only as provided in said section."

That part of section 122 (Act No. 496) to which said section 73 (Act No. 926) refers it as
follows:

The deed, grant, or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall
not take effect as a conveyance of bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the clerk or
register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey and affect the lands, and in all cases under this Act (No. 496) registration shall be
made in the office of the register of deeds for the province where the land lies. The fees
for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issue of the
certificate and "Owner's duplicate," such land shall be registered for all purposes under
this Act.

The petitioner contends that the only fee for registration which he is required to pay is the fee of
$3 (P6) provided for in section 114 of Act No. 496.

The respondent contends that all patents and certificates granting "public lands" issued by the
Government of the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, in order to be
registered in accordance with the provisions of section 122 (Act No. 496), the holder thereof
must pay the fee provided for in section 99 of said Act.

Act No. 496 of the Philippine Commission provides for a system of registration of land titles
under a system popularly known as the "Torrens system." said Act provides for the registration
of titles to lands held by individual, or, in other words, the registration of titles to lands which
have already been granted by the State to private persons. Section 19 provides who may make
application for registration of title. Section 21, as amended by Act No. 809, provides the form of
application. sections 29 and 41 provide for the registration or recording of the decree of the court
granting the registration of the title under said Act. Section 99 provides that in the original
registration or recording (meaning simply the first registration under the "Torrens system") that
there shall be paid to the register of deeds one-tenth of 1 per cent of the assessed value of the real
estate, on the basis of the last assessment for municipal taxation, as an assurance fund. Act No.
700 of the Philippine Commission provides for the method of ascertaining the value of the land,
in case the same has not been theretofore assessed for taxation.

Act No. 926 of the Philippine Commission provides for the issuing of patents to public lands in
six different cases, as follows: First. Sections 1 to 9, for patents to homesteads on the public
domain.

Second. Sections 10 to 21, for sales of portions of the public domain.

Third. Sections 32 to 35, for leases of portions of the public domain.

Fourth. Sections 32 to 35, for free patents to individual settlers on portions of the public domain.

Fifth. Sections 36 to 53, for the reservation of town sites.

Sixth. Sections 54 to 67, for unperfected titles and Spanish grants and concessions of the public
domain.

In each of the above grants or patents issued in accordance with the provisions applicable thereto
no provision whatever is made for the payment of a fee for the registration of the patent, except
under the patent granted for unperfected titles and Spanish grants and concessions of the public
domain, where, in section 57 (Act No. 926), we find this provision:

The fees provided to be paid for the registration of lands under the Land Registration Act
(No. 496) shall be collected from applicants under this chapter, except that upon the
original registration of the land claimed hereunder no fee shall be required for the
assurance fund.

We believe that this exception is significant of the fact that it was the intention of the lawmaking
body to require the payment of the fees for the registration of patents to public lands issued under
the provisions of said Act No. 926. This view is emphasized by the fact that section 199 (Act No.
496) expressly provides that all patents to public lands shall be brought forthwith under the
provisions of the Act providing for the registration of the land under the "Torrens system." Had it
been the intention of the lawmaking body — as the petitioner claims — not to require the
payment of one-tenth of 1 per cent by the holder of a patent to public land for the registration of
the same, then why did the Commission expressly relieve the holder of a patent to a portion of
the public domain (of unperfected titles and Spanish grants and concessions) from the payment
of this fee, when at the same time they had brought all patents to public lands under the
provisions of Act No. 496?
It will be noted by comparing section 41 of Act No. 496 with section 122 of the same Act, the
former relating to the registration of titles to private lands and the latter to the registration of
public lands, that the procedure, after the decree, in the first instance, is granted by the court,
and the patent, in the second, by the Governor (see section 73, Act No. 926) is substantially the
same. It is as follows. Section 41 provides "Immediately upon the entry of the decree of
registration the clerk shall send a certified copy thereof, under the seal of the court, to the register
of deeds for the province, or provinces, or city in which the land lies, and the register of deeds
shall transcribe the decree in a book to be called the 'Registration Book,' . . . . The entry made by
the register of deeds in this book in each case shall be the original certificate of title, and shall be
signed by him and sealed with the seal of the court. . . . The register of deeds shall in each make
an exact duplicate of the original certificate, including the seal, but putting on it the words
'Owner's duplicate certificate,' and deliver the same to the owner or to his attorney duly
authorized."

Section 122 in part provides "It shall be the duty of the official (the Governor-General) issuing
the instrument of alienation, grant, or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such
instrument, before its delivery to the grantee, to be filed with the register of deeds for the
province where the land lies and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyances,
whereupon a certificate shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an 'Owner's
duplicate certificate' issued to the grantee."

It will be noted also that section 122 provides that this patent, "before its delivery to the grantee,"
shall be filed with the register of deeds . . . "to be there registered like other deeds and
conveyances."

What does the phrase "like other deeds and conveyances," when applied to these patents and the
registration of the same, mean? It can only means titles issued under said Act No. 496. It can not
be construed to apply to titles given or executed between private parties, for the reason that
registration under the "Torrens system" makes no effort to change the method of transferring or
registering titles granted by or to private person, nor for the issuance of an "Owner's duplicate
certificate."

It will be noted further that after the patent is filed with the register of deeds for the proper
province, that a certificate shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an "Owner's
duplicate certificate" issued to the grantee. This provision of said section 122 shows clearly that
the phrase in said section "To be there registered like other deeds and conveyance" must
necessarily refer to "other deeds and conveyances issued in accordance with the provisions of
law granting "Torrens titles.'"

All these Act must be construed together. If we were to construe section 41 alone (Act No. 496)
we might conclude that the register of property would be compelled to register a private title or
title to private lands granted under said Act without the collection of any fee or fees whatever.
This section, read alone, seems to be mandatory in its terms. It says nothing about the collection
of fees; yet no one contends that the fees provided for in section 99 of said Act must not be paid
before the owner of the "original title" is entitled to the certificate.
Section 122 provides that the register of deeds must collect the fees. To what does the word
"fees" apply? Section 57 of Act No. 926 that the fees provided for the registration of lands, under
the Land Registration Act, shall be collected from the applicants, except that no fee shall be
required for an assurance fund.

Section 114 of Act No. 496 as amended by section 7 of Act No. 1648, as well as by section 11 of
Act No. 1699, provides what fees shall be collected in the course of the proceedings for the
registration of titles under the "Torrens system" and the amount in each case. This section (114)
with its amendments read alone might be construed to include or cover all fees. It will be noted,
however, that all these fees are for services actually rendered by the officers of the Court of Land
Registration or by the register of deeds of the province, etc., while the fee under section 99 is not
for services at all, but for the purpose of creating an "assurance fund."

The applicant admitted, by paying the fee for recording or registering his patent, that section 114
of Act No. 496, as amended, was applicable to a patent for public lands. An examination of
section 114, as amended, shows that the only fees collectible are fees for services actually
rendered by employees of the Government.

Section 6 of Act No. 1699 provides that all fees for the services of the clerk of the Court of Land
Registration shall be deposited in the Insular Treasury, and all fees payable for the services of the
register of deeds, etc., shall be deposited in the provincial treasury, or in the case of the register
of the city of Manila, then they shall be deposited in the Insular Treasury.

These funds are not available for the payment of any damages which may result to the real owner
of property by reason of an illegal or improper registration under the "Torrens system" in the
name of another, not the real owner. (See secs. 100, 101, 102, and 103, Act No. 496.)

The "assurance fund" is created for the purpose of paying any damages which may result from an
improper or illegal registration. All the people of the Philippine Archipelago may be taxed for
the purpose of paying these damages if the "assurance fund" is not sufficient. (Sec. 103, Act No.
496.) A large portion of the lands of the Archipelago still belong to the public domain. All
original patents granted thereto are given the advantage and protection of the provisions of Act
No. 496. Why should the future holders of these original patents be entitled to the protection of
this law without sharing its burdens? We believe that when the legislative department of the
Government provided that "Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands, . . . are alienated,
granted, or conveyed to persons or to public or to private corporations, the same shall be brought
forthwith under the operation of this Act (No. 496) and shall become registered land," thereby
giving the holder of these original patents the benefit of said Act (No. 496), it intended also to
impose upon such grantees the burdens of said Act. But in reply to this consideration we are met
with the question, Why should the Government require a fund to insure against its own acts,
thereby implying that there is no possibility of mistakes occurring in the granting of these patents
and that there is no possibility of the occurrence of damages? The, literally, hundreds of cases
which have been brought in the courts of the United States to set aside original patents granted
by the Government which have been secured by fraud, mistake, etc., are a complete answer to
this contention.
We are of the opinion and so hold that when the legislative department of the Government
provides in section 99 of Act No. 496 that "Upon the original registration of land under this Act,"
etc., "there shall be paid to the register of deeds one-tenth of one per cent of the assessed value of
the real estate," etc., "there shall be paid to the register of deeds one-tenth of one per cent of the
assessed value of the real estate," etc.; and when it provided that "Whenever public lands," etc.,
"are alienated, granted, or conveyed," etc., "the same shall be brought forthwith under the
provisions of this Act" (sec. 122, Act No. 496), that it intended to bring all future titles granted to
public lands immediately under the "Torrens system" and that such holders, in order to secure the
registration of such titles, should make a contribution to the "assurance fund."

It not being the clear and specific legal duty, therefore, of the defendant (Register of Deeds) to
register the patent in question without requiring the payment of the fee provided for in section 99
of Act No. 496, the demurrer is hereby sustained with costs, and the petitioner is hereby given
ten days from receipt of notice of this decision in which to amend his petition, if he so desires. If
the petition is not amended within ten days, then let a judgment be entered with costs denying the
issuance of the writ of mandamus prayed for in said petition. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.