Digest Land

7/29/2019 Digest Land

1/3

Gabriel Vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal

7/29/2019 Digest Land

2/3

facts: Petitioner Elisa Gabriel filed with the register of deeds of Rizal and Manila, notice of

adverse claims, against the properties registered in the name of her sister, Juanita Domingo. Sheassailed that the propeties wered acquired and owned by their deceased mother, but were

fraudulently registered in the name of Juanita,depriving petitioner of her lawful rights, interestsand participations over said properties.

Juanita moved to deny both registrations of notice of adverse claims contending that they weredone in order to harrass her, and that they had no legal effect. The register of deeds of Rizal

denied the registration filed in his office. Hence, petitioner appeal such denial to the Land

Registration Commission (LRC) in which both registrations were heard with reasons, inter alia,that they comply with the formal and legal requirements under sec. 110 of Act no. 496.

Juanita moved for a reconsideration saying that the register of deeds has the power to refuse

and/or suspend registrations of documents when he thinks they are not valid and registrable,

hence, his function is not only ministerial but also mandatory.

Issue: whether or not the register of deeds may refuse registrations of documents, like

registrations of notice of adverse claims.

Ruling: No. The register of deeds has to perform his ministerial duty to accept registratins where

documents containing the adverse claims is suffecient in law and drawn up in existing

requirements. Whether or not the adverse claims sought to be registered are frivolous and merelyintended to harass are for a court of competent jurisdiction to decide, and not for the Land

Registration Commission. Registrability should not be confused with its validity. Its validity willbe determined in a separate proceeding.

Petition granted.

Register of Deeds of Manila Vs. Tinoco

7/29/2019 Digest Land

3/3

facts: Respondents were the registered owners of 15 parcels of lands. They enetered into several

lease contracts until the controversy came about when Juanita Lirio, the last lessee of 8 parcels ofland, filed for annotation with the register of deeds of Manila the contract of lease in her favor.

However, the filing was not accomplished since she was not able to present the owner's duplicatecertificate of title (ODC) for the 8 parcels of land, for such was in the possession of the

respondents.

For that reason she filed with the register of deeds of Manila adverse claim based on the lease

contract. Eventually, the registrar required the respondents to surrender the ODCT but the latter

refuseed. The registerar reported the mattr to the CFI of Manila which ordered the respondents tosurrender gthe ODCT. Hence, this appeal on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the CFI of Manila can compel the respondents to surrender to the registerof deeds the ODCT so that notice of adverse claim in connection with the contratc of lease may

be annotated thereon.

Ruling: Yes. Section 72 of Land Registration Act vests the CFI the authority to direct an adverse

claim, such as lease, to be registered and to compelk the holder of the certificate of title to

produce it for such purpose. If the claim is adjudged to be invalid by the court, the remedy of the

owner ofr the registered land is to have it cancelled, and if found to be frivolous or vexatious, itmay tax the adverse claimant double or treble cost at its discretion.

Decision of CFI affirmed.