Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]

8/12/2019 Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]

1/5

LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92

FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 1

(1) CAVILES v. BAUTISTAThe Court has repeatedly held that in involuntary

registration, such as an attachment, entry thereofin the daybook or entry book is a sufficient notice

to all persons of such adverse claim.

FACTS: Caviles filed a case against Plata for the recoveryof a sum of money. The complaint contained an

application for the issuance of a writ of preliminaryattachment over Platas property. The CFI issued the writ

of attachment prayed for by Caviles and so the Notice of

Attachment was entered in the Primary Entry Book onOctober 6, 1982, but was not annotated on the TCT.

On October 18, 1982, Plata sold the property toBautista, free from encumbrance. From then on, the

respondents have taken over and resided in the property.Caviles, on the other hand, remained ignorant that the

property had been sold and a new title was issued toBautista.

Several years later, after obtaining a favorablejudgment in the Civil Case against Plata, Caviles

attempted execution. The Certificate of Sale was

entered in the Day Book but when its inscription wassought to be made, it was discovered that Platas

certificate had been cancelled and a new one was issuedto Bautista.

ISSUE: Which interest will prevail, that of Caviles (whichconsists of a notice of attachment duly entered in theDay Book or Primary Entry Book on October 6, 1982, or

that of respondents, which consists of a Deed of Saleexecuted on October 18,1982 entered in the Day Book?

HELD: The Supreme Court first determined which of theparties was negligent. Bautista was not negligent because

they relied on Platas certificate of title, free fromnotice of any attachment. The instrument was also free

from notice of any defect. Likewise, Caviles was notnegligent because he successfully obtained a writ of

preliminary attachment and the notice of attachmentwas then entered in the Primary Entry Book of the

Register of Deeds (it was, however, not annotated on theTCT). Given that both parties are in good faith, who

between them has a better right to the property inquestion?

Article 1544 of the New Civil Code states that Should it be immovable property, the ownership shallbelong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first

recorded it in the Registry of Property. In the case atbar, the notice of attachment was annotated in the entry

book of the Register of Deeds on October 6, 1982, while

the new TCT in the name of Bautista was issued onOctober 18, 1982, the date when Plata sold the propertyto Bautista. The Court has repeatedly held that in

involuntary registration, such as an attachment, entrythereof in the daybook or entry book is a sufficient

notice to all persons of such adverse claim. Caviles lienof attachment was properly recorded when it was

entered in the primary entry book of the Register ofDeeds. Therefore, CAVILES WINS.

(2) SAJONES v. CAFACTS:

* Spouses Uychocde agreed to sell a residential landlocated in Rizal to spouses Sajonas on installment basis

as evidenced by a Contract to Sell* The property was registered in the names of Uychocdespouses while the Sajonas couple caused the annotationof an adverse claim based on the said Contract to Sell on

the title of said property* Upon full payment of purchase price, the Uychocdes

executed a Deed of Sale involving the property in favor

of the Sajonas couple and was registered almost a yearafter

* It appears that Pilares, (sheriff) filed an action forcollection of sum of money against spouses Uychocde

* A Compromise Agreement was entered into by theparties in the said case under which Uychocde

acknowledged his monetary obligation to the sheriffamounting to 27,800 pesos and agreed to pay the same intwo years* Upon Uychocdes failure to pay his obligation, Pilares

moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce

the decision based on the compromise agreement, whichthe court granted

* Pursuant to the order of execution, a notice of levy onexecution was issued and the sheriff presented such

notice of levy before the Register of Deeds, which wasannotated at the back of the TCT

* The notice of levy on execution was annotated over thenew title of Sajonas couple

* The petitioner then filed a third party claim with thesheriff hence the auction sale did not push through* They demanded the cancellation of the notice of levyon execution from the sheriff but the latter refused* TC in favor of petitioner, CA reversed TCs decision

ISSUE:

1. W/N petitioner spouses have a better right overthe property over the sheriff by virtue of the

notice on levy on execution2. W/N petitioners are buyers in good faith

RULING: Yes to both

While it is the act of registration, which is theoperative act, which conveys or affects the land insofar

as third persons are concerned, it is likewise true, thatthe subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificateof title cannot prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn

to and annotated on the certificate of title previous tothe sale.

While it is true that under the provisions of PD 1529,

deeds of conveyance of property registered under thesystem, or any interest therein only take effect as aconveyance to bind the land upon its registration, and

that a purchaser is not required to explore further thanwhat the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates in quest

for any hidden defect or inchoate right that maysubsequently defeat his right thereto, nonetheless, the

rule is not absolute.Thus, one who buys from the registered owner need

not have to look behind the certificate of title, he is,

nevertheless, bound by the liens and encumbrancesannotated thereon. One who buys without checking the

8/12/2019 Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]

2/5



vendors title takes all the risks and losses consequent to

such failureThe disputed inscription of adverse claim on the TCT

under the name of Uychocde spouses was still in effectwhen the sheriff annotated the notice of levy on

execution thereto. Consequently, he is charged withknowledge that the property sought to be levied upon onexecution was encumbered by an interest the same as orbetter than that of the registered owner thereof. Such

notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverseclaim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the

petitioners.

As to whether or not Sajones couple are buyers in goodfaith, the trial court is correct in saying that they are

because they were not aware of the pending case filedby Pilares against Uychocde at the time of the sale of

property by the latter in their favor.At any rate, PD 1529 guarantees to every purchaser of

registered land in good faith that they can take and holdthe same free from any and all prior claims, liens andencumbrances except those set forth in the certificate oftile and those expressly mentioned in the ACT as having

been preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of the

conclusiveness of the certificate of title, which theTorrens system seeks to insure, would be futile and

nugatory.

(3) RODRIGUEZ v. CAFACTS: Respondent Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingowere the registered owners of a house and lot, which was

mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines,which mortgage was later absorbed by the Home Mutual

Development Fund (HMDF) or Pag-ibig.On April 27, 1992, Respondents Calingo and

Respondents Barrameda entered into a contract of salewith assumption of mortgage where Respondents

Barrameda issued two checks.

Respondent Calingo then informed HMDF/Pag-ibigabout the transaction on 4-23-91. However the letter andaffidavit by respondents Calingo, was served uponHMDF/Pag-ibig on October 2, 1992.

On the other hand, Respondents Barrameda filed withthe RD of Paraaque an affidavit of adverse claim on the

property on May 29, 1992.On June 1, 1992, Respondent Barrameda wrote HMDF,

to confirm the transaction and sought assistance fromsaid office as regards to the procedure for the full

settlement of the mortgage.

However on July 13, 1992, Spouses Rodriguez caused anotice of levy with attachment on real property was

annotated at the back of the certificate of title of theproperty in question. Subsequently petitioners counselsent a letter to respondents inquiring about the basis oftheir occupation of the property in question.

On August 21, 1992, respondents Barrameda paid thefinal settlement for the sale to Calingo. Calingo

guaranteed that the property was clear and free fromany liens and encumbrances, except the real estate

mortgage assumed by respondents.

On October 7, 1992, respondents executed a jointaffidavit claiming ownership over the property, and that

levy was illegal, since they already acquired the property

before it was levied.However on October 15, 1992, petitioner pointed out

the contrary and asked Barrameda spouses to confer withthem to amicably settle the controversy.

On November 9, 1992, respondents Barrameda found aNotice of auction sale posted on their front gate,announcing the auction sale of their house and lot.

On November 20, 1992, respondents Barrameda served

a Notice of Third Party Claim upon Sheriff .And finally on December 2, 1992, respondents filed

with the RTC of Makati a petition for quieting of title

with prayer for preliminary injunction. The petitionprayed, among others, that the execution sale of the

property be enjoined, the notice of levy and attachmentinscribed on the certificate of title be cancelled, and

that respondents Barrameda be declared the lawful andsole owners of the property in question.

The trial court ruled in favor of spouses Rodriguez anddismissed respondents Barramedas petition for quietingof title.

It ruled that the respondents adverse claim was

insufficient to establish their claim over the property.Furthermore respondents as buyers should have

registered the title in their names. The court also saidthat respondents adverse claim had lost its efficacy

after the lapse of thirty days in accordance with theprovisions of the PD1529.

Lastly the trial court found that there was collusionbetween barrameda and Calingo to transfer the property

to defraud third parties who may have a claim againstthe Calingos.

However upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision ofthe trial court. It held that respondents Barramedasadverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was

still effective at the time the property was levied onexecution.

Consequently, petitioners are with knowledge that theproperty sought to be levied upon on execution was

encumbered by an interest the same as or better thanthat of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy

cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribedon the certificate of title in favor of the Barramedas.

Therefore, that the notice of levy could not prevailover respondents Barramedas adverse claim.

Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of theappellate courts ruling, but the motion was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the adverse claim inscribed byrespondents prevail over the levy on execution issued by

another court.

RULING: The Court ruled that the adverse claim ofrespondent will not prevail over the levy on execution

issued by another court.The Court in reversing the CA, states that respondents

anchor their claim on the sale, which was neverregistered under the Torrens system; therefore it cannot

affect third parties.The Court states that it is the act of registration shall

be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar

as third persons are concerned, and in all cases underthis Decree, the registration shall be made in the office

8/12/2019 Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]

3/5



of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where

the land lies.In the case at bar, the deed of sale with assumption of

mortgage executed by respondents is a registrableinstrument. In order to bind third parties, it must be

registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. Itwas not shown in this case that there was justifiablereason why the deed could not be registered. Hence, theremedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for

registration.According to SC, the annotation of an adverse claim

is a measure designed to protect the interest of aperson over a piece of real property where theregistration of such interest or right is not otherwiseprovided for by the Land Registration Act, and servesas a notice and warning to third parties dealing withsaid property that someone is claiming an interest onthe same or a better right than the registered ownerthereof.

(4) LIGON v. CAFACTS: The Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP),by virtue of an absolute deed, sold to Iglesia ni Kristo

(INK) 2 parcels of land in Tandang Sora, Barrio Culiat,QC. It was stipulated therein that IDP shall undertake toevict all squatters in the property within 45 days fromthe execution of the contract. IDP failed to do this,hence, INK sued for specific performance with damages.

IDP, on the other hand, alleged that it was INK whichviolated the contract by delaying the payment of the

purchase price and sought to have the contract of salerescinded.

Thereafter, INK filed a motion for partial summaryjudgment on the ground that there was actually no

genuine issue as to any material fact; the TC granted.A year after, INK filed a motion in the same case

seeking to compel Leticia Ligon (petitioner), who was in

possession of the certificates of title over the propertiesas mortgagee of IDP, to surrender said certificates to theRD of QC for the registration of the absolute deed of salein its name. Ligon allegedly refused and/or failed to

deliver the certificates despite repeated requests.To this, Ligon opposed saying that (a) IDP was not served

copy of the motion, (b) ownership of INK over theproperty was still in issue, (c) and that the trial court had

no jurisdiction as the motion involved the registrability ofthe document of sale, and she was not made a party in

the main case.

The TC granted INKs motion and ordered petitioner tosurrender the certificates of title in open court for the

registration of the absolute deed of sale in the lattersname and the annotation of the mortgage executed infavor of petitioner on the new certificates (to be issuedto INK). Upon Ligons motion, the TC redirected her to

deliver the documents to the RD of QC.

ISSUE: W/N INK has a superior right to the possession ofthe owners copies of the certificated of title.

HELD: YES. Under our land registration law, no voluntaryinstrument shall be registered by the Register of Deedsunless the owners duplicate certificate is presented

together with such instrument, except in some cases orupon the order of the court for cause shown. In case theperson in possession refuses or fails to surrender the

same to the RD so that a voluntary document may beregistered and a new certificate issued, Sec. 107 of P.D.

No. 1529 states:Where a voluntary instrument cannot be registeredby reason of the refusal or failure of the holder tosurrender the owners duplicate, the party in

interest may file a petition in court to compelsurrender of the same to the RD. The court, after

hearing, may order the registered owner or any

person withholding the duplicate certificate tosurrender the same and direct the entry of a new

certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. Ifthe person withholding the duplicate certificate is

not amenable to the process of the court, of if forany reason the outstanding owners duplicate cannot

be delivered, the court may order the annulment ofthe same as well as the issuance of a new certificateof title in lieu thereof.Pursuant to Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529, the distinction

between the RTCs general and the limited jurisdiction

when acting merely as a cadastral court has beeneliminated. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the

change has simplified registration proceedings byconferring upon the RTCs the authority to act not only on

applications for original registration but also overpetitions filed after original registration of title, with

power to hear and determine all questions arising uponsuch applications or petitions.

Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petitionwhich can be filed by one who wants to compel anotherto surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this doesnot preclude a party to a pending case to include asincident therein the relief stated under said section,

especially if the subject certificates of title to besurrendered are intimately connected with the subject

matter of the principal action. The principal action isbased on expediency and in accordance with the policy

against multiplicity of suits.The order directing the surrender of the certificates to

the RD in order that the deed be registered in favor ofINK cannot in any way prejudice her rights and interests

as mortagee, since any lien annotated on the previouscertificates which subsists shall be incorporated or

carried over to the new certificates of title.

(5) MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS v. CAFACTS: Magdalena Estate Inc. (MEI) owned a subdivision

located at QC. It has a total area of 355,490 sq.m. Thelot in question was lot 15, blk 18 measuring 21,460 sq.m.A part of this lot measuring 7,100 sq.m was initially setaside as the subdivisions open space which will be

allotted to recreational zones such as parking,playground.

Subsequently, the subdivision plan was amended bysubstituting the earlier designated open space with

another lot covering the same area. This was approved

by QC City Council. Lot 15 thereafter was approved to bealienated.

8/12/2019 Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]

4/5



A part of lot 15 was sold to DBP by way of dacion en

pago and the remaining part was sold to third parties.The Magdalena homeowners association brought a suit to

recover the original open space. They have caused anotice of lis pendens be recorded at the Registry of

Deeds.The lower court rendered a favorable decision for

petitioner but was appealed to CA to obtain favorablemodifications. While the case was pending, MEI and DBP

filed in separate motions praying for the cancellation ofthe notice of lis pendens. These motions were favorably

granted.

ISSUE: W/N the CA had jurisdiction to take cognizance of

and grant the motion to cancel notice of lis pendenssince no motion had ever been filed in court a quo.

HELD: CA has jurisdiction. Under Rule 14 sec 24 of the

Rules of Court and Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lispendens is proper in the following cases:

a) an action to recover possession of realestate

b) an action to quiet title theretoc) an action to remove clouds thereond) an actionfor partition; ande) any other proceedings of any kind in Court

directly affecting the title to the land or

the use or occupation thereof or thebuildings thereon.

The notice of lis pendens- that the real property isinvolved in an action- is ordinarily recorded w/o the

intervention of the court where it is pending. The noticeis an incident in an action. The cancellation therefore isalso a mere incident and may be ordered by the Courthaving jurisdiction over it at any time. In the case at bar,CA has jurisdiction by virtue of the perfection of the

petitioners appeal. The issue of questions relating tomerits cannot be raised for the first time in appeal does

not apply to mere incidents such as cancellation ofnotice of lis pendens.

(6) A. DORONILLA RESOURCES v. CAFACTS: Purita Landicho owned a parcel of land.

Eventually, Blue Chips Projects, Inc purchased andregistered in its own name said lot (1,256,269 sqm) in

San Mateo, Rizal.In 1972, Doronilla Resources Development Inc. availed

of the remedy of lis pendens, which was annotated on

Blue Chips' TCT. A year after, Alfonso Doronilla (thepresident) filed an affidavit of adverse claim for

registration on Blue Chips' TCT on the ground that theproperty is a portion of a big parcel of land which waspurchased by Doronilla Resources from Alfonso Doronilla.

However, RD of Rizal (resp) denied the registration of

the affidavot of the adverse claim on the ground that anotice of lis pendens remain registered on the TCT

involved. Doronilla Resources elevated the matter enconsulta to the Land Registration Commission, which

denied the registration of the adverse claim as well.

In 1973, Blue Chips sold the land in favor of WinmarPoultry Farms, Inc. Its TCT had an annotation at the back

that the land is subject to a resolution by the LRC. Once

again, Doronilla Resources sought to have a similar

affidavit of adverse claim on Winmar's TCT registered.LRC rendered a decision denying the registration of the

affidavit of adverse claim.Doronilla Resources appealed to the CA, which upheld

the decision of the LRC. Thus the case at bar.

ISSUE: W/N the annotation of a notice of lis pendens atthe back of the TCT precludes the subsequent

registration on the same or successor TCT of an adverseclaim

HELD: NO. The two remediesnotice of lis pendens andadverse claimare NOT contradictory or repugnant to

one another; nor does the existence of one automaticallynullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be

considered unnecessary, it would be the notice of lispendens and not the annotation of adverse claim which is

more permanent and cannot be cancelled withoutadequate hearing and proper disposition of the claiminvolved. Both are intended to protect the interest of aclaimant by posing as notices and caution to those

involved with the property that it is subject to a claim.

Moreover, the annotation at the back of Winmar's TCTthat the property is subject to the resolution of the 2nd

affidavit of adverse claim does NOT amply protect therights and interests of Doronilla Resources. It cannot

serve as notice and warning to third persons dealing withthe property that someone is claiming an interest in the

same or a better title than that of the registered owner.A consulta is the reference of a question to the

Commissioner of Land Registration by a RD when he is indoubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed orinstrument is presented to him for registration.

(7) LOPEZ v. ENRIQUEZFACTS:Sandoval and Ozaeta filed an application for registrationof title in the RTC. RTC subsequently granted theirrequest. The heirs of Enriquez filed a motion allegingthat Sandoval and Ozaeta sold the lots in question to

their deceased father, Eugenio Lopez, Sr.

However, the decision of the RTC on the application forregistration of Sandoval and Ozaeta being final and

executory, the LRA issued titles in their names. Thepetitioners (heirs) filed a motion to nullify said OCTs.

They also applied with the Register of Deeds for the

annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the back of theOCTs. The LRA denied said application on the basis of the

notice not being registrable solely because of the motionto nullify the OCTs. CA affirmed the LRAs decision.

ISSUE:W/N the petitioners motion to declare void the decreesissued by the LRA is a proper basis for filing the notice of

lis pendens?

HELD:No.As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis

pendens should contain a statement of the institution of

8/12/2019 Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]

5/5



an action or proceeding, the court where the same is

pending, and the date of its institution. A notice of lispendensshould also contain a reference to the number of

the certificate of title of the land, an adequatedescription of the land affected and its registered

owner.l^vvphi1.netThe Register of Deeds denied registration of the notice oflis pendens because "the application was bereft of theoriginal petition or complaint upon which this office will

base its action."

(8) SLDC v. CAFACTS: The Spouses Lu owned a parcel of land whichthey purportedly sold to Babasanta. He demanded theexecution of a Final Deed of Sale in his favor so he may

effect full payment of the purchase price; the Spousesdeclined to push through with the sale. They claim that

hen he requested for a discount and they refused, herescinded the agreement. Thus Babasanta filed a case for

specific performance; San Lorenzo DevelopmentCorporation intervened claiming that the lots have been

sold to it by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale withmortgage and that it was a purchaser in good faith. Both

sale were not registered.

ISSUE: Who has a better right between SLDC andBabasanta

HELD: SLDC has a better right.There was no contract to sell in this case because the

contract in favor of Babasanta was a mere contract tosell. Hence Article 1544 is not applicable. He ownership

of the property was not to be transmitted in favor untilthe full payment of the purchase price. There was

neither actual nor constructive delivery as his title isbased on a mere receipt, Based on this alone, the right

of SLDC must be preferred.

While it is true that Babasanta was able to have anotice of lis pendens annotated in the title of theSpouses Lu, the same was accomplished already after theproperty has already been transferred to SLDC; thus it

cannot affect the title and good faith of SLDC.

* END *

Documents

Land+Titles+Sec+69-92[1]