Professional Documents
Culture Documents
After shown the lots to be affected, as they were before, and as they will
the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree appear after the consolidation. Upon the surrender of the owner's
of registration, the land therein described may still be the subject duplicate certificates and the receipt of consolidation plan duty
approved by the Commission, the Register of Deeds concerned
of dealings in whole or in part, in which case the interested party
shall cancel the corresponding certificates of title and issue a new
shall present to the court the pertinent instruments together with a one for the consolidated lots.
subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of
transfer of portions thereof and the court, after notice to the
The Commission may not order or cause any change, modification,
parties, shall order such land registered subject to the conveyance or amendment in the contents of any certificate of title, or of any
or encumbrance created by said instruments, or order that the decree or plan, including the technical description therein,
decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom covering any real property registered under the Torrens system,
the property has been conveyed by said instruments. nor order the cancellation of the said certificate of title and the
issuance of a new one which would result in the enlargement of the
area covered by the certificate of title.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.
Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge
with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws.
owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented for registration, He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other
the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed,
approval of said plan, register the same in accordance with the mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will
provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended: Provided, purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a
however, that the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the new conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
certificate of title covering the street, passageway or open space, a between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of
memorandum to the effect that except by way of donation in favor Deeds to make registration.
of the national government, province, city or municipality, no
portion of any street, passageway, waterway or open space so
delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or
the registered owner without the approval of the Court of First affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all
Instance of the province or city in which the land is situated. cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the
office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land lies.
A registered owner desiring to consolidate several lots into one or
more, requiring new technical descriptions, shall file with the Land
Registration Commission, a consolidation plan on which shall be Section 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every
conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment,
instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, Section 55. Grantee's name, nationality, etc., to be stated. Every
filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the deed or other voluntary instrument presented for registration shall
province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be contain or have endorsed upon it the full name, nationality,
constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, residence and postal address of the grantee or other person
filing or entering. acquiring or claiming an interest under such instrument, and every
deed shall also state whether the grantee is married or unmarried,
Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new and if married, the name in full of the husband or wife. If the
certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the grantee is a corporation or association, the instrument must
Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is contain a recital to show that such corporation or association is
presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly legally qualified to acquire private lands. Any change in the
provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause residence or postal address of such person shall be endorsed by
shown. the Register of Deeds on the original copy of the corresponding
certificate of title, upon receiving a sworn statement of such
change. All names and addresses shall also be entered on all
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any certificates.
voluntary instrument is presented for 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 Notices and processed issued in relation to registered land in
registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new pursuance of this Decree may be served upon any person in
certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered interest by mailing the same to the addresses given, and shall be
owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every binding, whether such person resides within or without the
purchaser for value and in good faith. Philippines, but the court may, in its discretion, require further or
other notice to be given in any case, if in its opinion the interest of
justice so requires.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may
pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to
such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any Section 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies. Each
innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. After the entry of Register of Deeds shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon
the decree of registration on the original petition or application, payment of the entry fee, he shall enter, in the order of their
any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a reception, all instruments including copies of writs and processes
forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a preliminary
instrument, shall be null and void. process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and
minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they
were received. They shall be regarded as registered from the time
Section 54. Dealings less than ownership, how registered. No new so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument, when made
certificate shall be entered or issued pursuant to any instrument on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same
which does not divest the ownership or title from the owner or date: Provided, that the national government as well as the
from the transferee of the registered owners. All interests in provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the payment
registered land less than ownership shall be registered by filing of such fees in advance in order to be entitled to entry and
with the Register of Deeds the instrument which creates or registration.
transfers or claims such interests and by a brief memorandum
thereof made by the Register of Deeds upon the certificate of title,
and signed by him. A similar memorandum shall also be made on Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary,
the owner's duplicate. The cancellation or extinguishment of such so filed with the Register of Deeds shall be numbered and indexed
interests shall be registered in the same manner. and endorsed with a reference to the proper certificate of title. All
records and papers relative to registered land in the office of the
Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in the same manner been conveyed, and every certificate with such memorandum shall
as court records, subject to such reasonable regulations as the be effectual for the purpose of showing the grantee's title to the
Register of Deeds, under the direction of the Commissioner of Land portion conveyed to him, pending the actual issuance of the
Registration, may prescribe. corresponding certificate in his name.
All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the
respective copies and shall be attested and sealed by the Register original of the plan, together with a certified copy of the technical
of Deeds, endorsed with the file number, and copies may be descriptions shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for annotation
delivered to the person presenting them. in the corresponding certificate of title and thereupon said officer
shall issue a new certificate of title to the grantee for the portion
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be conveyed, and at the same time cancel the grantor's certificate
obtained from the Register of Deeds upon payment of the partially with respect only to said portion conveyed, or, if the
prescribed fees. grantor so desires, his certificate may be canceled totally and a
new one issued to him describing therein the remaining portion:
Provided, however, that pending approval of said plan, no further
(A) CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS registration or annotation of any subsequent deed or other
voluntary instrument involving the unsegregated portion conveyed
Section 57. Procedure in registration of conveyances. An owner shall be effected by the Register of Deeds, except where such
desiring to convey his registered land in fee simple shall execute unsegregated portion was purchased from the Government or any
and register a deed of conveyance in a form sufficient in law. The of its instrumentalities. If the land has been subdivided into several
Register of Deeds shall thereafter make out in the registration lots, designated by numbers or letters, the Register of Deeds may,
book a new certificate of title to the grantee and shall prepare and if desired by the grantor, instead of canceling the latter's
deliver to him an owner's duplicate certificate. The Register of certificate and issuing a new one to the same for the remaining
Deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certificate the unconveyed lots, enter on said certificate and on its owner's
date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book in duplicate a memorandum of such deed of conveyance and of the
which the new certificate is registered and a reference by number issuance of the transfer certificate to the grantee for the lot or lots
to the last preceding certificate. The original and the owner's thus conveyed, and that the grantor's certificate is canceled as to
duplicate of the grantor's certificate shall be stamped "canceled". such lot or lots.
The deed of conveyance shall be filled and indorsed with the
number and the place of registration of the certificate of title of the Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the time of any
land conveyed. transfer, subsisting encumbrances or annotations appear in the
registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new
Section 58. Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land. certificate or certificates; except so far as they may be
If a deed or conveyance is for a part only of the land described in a simultaneously released or discharged.
certificate of title, the Register of Deeds shall not enter any
transfer certificate to the grantee until a plan of such land showing (B) MORTGAGES AND LEASES
all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided and the
corresponding technical descriptions shall have been verified and
approved pursuant to Section 50 of this Decree. Meanwhile, such Section 60. Mortgage or lease of registered land. Mortgage and
deed may only be annotated by way of memorandum upon the leases shall be registered in the manner provided in Section 54 of
grantor's certificate of title, original and duplicate, said this Decree. The owner of registered land may mortgage or lease it
memorandum to serve as a notice to third persons of the fact that by executing the deed in a form sufficient in law. Such deed of
certain unsegregated portion of the land described therein has mortgage or lease and all instruments which assign, extend,
discharge or otherwise deal with the mortgage or lease shall be
registered, and shall take effect upon the title only from time of If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale
registration. executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at a
foreclosure sale shall be registered with the Register of
No mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate certificate of title shall Deeds; whereupon the title of the mortgagor shall be
hereafter be issued by the Registers of Deeds, and those issued canceled, and a new certificate issued in the name of the
prior to the effectivity of this Decree are hereby deemed canceled purchaser.
and the holders thereof shall immediately surrender the same to
the Register of Deeds concerned. (b) If the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially, a
certificate of sale executed by the officer who conducted
Section 61. Registration. Upon presentation for registration of the the sale shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall
deed of mortgage or lease together with the owner's duplicate, the make a brief memorandum thereof on the certificate of
Register of Deeds shall enter upon the original of the certificate of title.
title and also upon the owner's duplicate certificate a
memorandum thereof, the date and time of filing and the file In the event of redemption by the mortgagor, the same
number assigned to the deed, and shall sign the said rule provided for in the second paragraph of this section
memorandum. He shall also note on the deed the date and time of shall apply.
filing and a reference to the volume and page of the registration
book in which it is registered. In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at foreclosure
sale shall file with the Register of Deeds, either a final deed
Section 62. Discharge or cancellation. A mortgage or lease on of sale executed by the person authorized by virtue of the
registered land may be discharge or canceled by means of an power of attorney embodied in the deed of mortgage, or
instrument executed by the mortgage or lessee in a form sufficient his sworn statement attesting to the fact of non-
in law, which shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall redemption; whereupon, the Register of Deeds shall issue
make the appropriate memorandum upon the certificate of title. a new certificate in favor of the purchaser after the owner's
duplicate of the certificate has been previously delivered
Section 63. Foreclosure of Mortgage. (a) If the mortgage was and canceled.
foreclosed judicially, a certified copy of the final order of the court
confirming the sale shall be registered with the Register of Deeds. (C) POWERS OF ATTORNEY; TRUSTS
If no right of redemption exists, the certificate of title of the
mortgagor shall be canceled, and a new certificate issued in the Section 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power of
name of the purchaser. attorney, convey or otherwise deal with registered land and the
same shall be registered with the Register of Deeds of the province
Where the right of redemption exists, the certificate of title or city where the land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of
of the mortgagor shall not be canceled, but the certificate attorney shall be registered in like manner.
of sale and the order confirming the sale shall be
registered by a brief memorandum thereof made by the Section 65. Trusts in registered land. If a deed or other
Register of Deeds upon the certificate of title. In the event instrument is filed in order to transfer registered land in trust, or
the property is redeemed, the certificate or deed of upon any equitable condition or limitation expressed therein, or to
redemption shall be filed with the Register of Deeds, and a create or declare a trust or other equitable interests in such land
brief memorandum thereof shall be made by the Register without transfer, the particulars of the trust, condition, limitation or
of Deeds on the certificate of title of the mortgagor. other equitable interest shall not be entered on the certificate; but
only a memorandum thereof shall be entered by the words "in
trust", or "upon condition", or other apt words, and by a reference operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing
by number to the instrument authorizing or creating the same. A the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf
similar memorandum shall be made upon the original instrument of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the
creating or declaring the trust or other equitable interest with a Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to
reference by number to the certificate of title to which it relates be there registered like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a
and to the volume and page in the registration book in which it is certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered
registered. land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee. The deed,
grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to
Section 66. Trust with power of sale, etc., how expressed. If the the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land
instrument creating or declaring a trust or other equitable interest but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and
contains an express power to sell, mortgage or deal with the land the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds
in any manner, such power shall be stated in the certificate of title to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the
by the words "with power to sell", or "power to mortgage", or by operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under
apt words of description in case of other powers. No instrument this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register
which transfers, mortgages or in any way deals with registered of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for
land in trust shall be registered, unless the enabling power thereto registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and
is expressly conferred in the trust instrument, or unless a final issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be
judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction has registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.
construed the instrument in favor of the power, in which case a
certified copy of such judgment or order may be registered. CHAPTER XIII
DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS
Section 67. Judicial appointment of new trustee. If a new trustee
of registered land is appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered
a new certificate may be issued to him upon presentation to the lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
Register of Deeds of a certified copy of the order or judicial instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system
appointment and the surrender for cancellation of the duplicate shall be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such
certificate. instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein
prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or
Section 68. Implied, trusts, how established. Whoever claims an city where the land lies.
interest in registered land by reason of any implied or constructive
trust shall file for registration with the Register of Deeds a sworn (a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall
statement thereof containing a description of the land, the name of keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The
the registered owner and a reference to the number of the Primary Entry Book shall contain, among other particulars,
certificate of title. Such claim shall not affect the title of a the entry number, the names of the parties, the nature of
purchaser for value and in good faith before its registration. the document, the date, hour and minute it was presented
and received. The recording of the deed and other
CHAPTER VIII instruments relating to unregistered lands shall be effected
REGISTRATION OF PATENTS by any of annotation on the space provided therefor in the
Registration Book, after the same shall have been entered
in the Primary Entry Book.
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. Whenever
public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed
to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is
sufficient in law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith
record the instrument in the manner provided herein. In
case the Register of Deeds refuses its administration to
record, said official shall advise the party in interest in
writing of the ground or grounds for his refusal, and the
latter may appeal the matter to the Commissioner of Land
Registration in accordance with the provisions of Section
117 of this Decree. It shall be understood that any
recording made under this section shall be without
prejudice to a third party with a better right.
Submitted are the following motions filed by In view of this development, the petitioners filed in G.R. No. 62042
movants Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia and G.R. No. 64432 ex-parte motions for issuance of an order
through counsel dated August 28, 1984: directing the Regional Trial Court and Acting Register of Deeds to
execute and implement the judgments of this Court. They prayed
(a) Reiterating Motion for Execution of Judgment of that an order be issued:
Resolutions dated January 7, 1983 and March 9,
1983 Promulgated by Honorable Supreme Court 1. Ordering both the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
(First Division) in G.R. No. 62042; Branch XXIII, under Hon. Judge Tito G. Gustilo and
the acting Register of Deeds Helen P. Sornito to
register the Order dated September 5, 1984 of the WHEREFORE, the Acting Register of Deeds,
lower court; Province of Iloilo, is hereby ordered to register the
Order of this Court dated September 5, 1984 as
2. To cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T- prayed for.
106098 and once cancelled to issue new
certificates of title to each of Eduardo S. Baranda xxx xxx xxx
and Alfonso Hitalia;
ORDER
Plus other relief and remedies equitable under the
premises. (p. 473, 64432 Rollo) This is a Manifestation and Urgent Petition for the
Surrender of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
Acting on these motions, we issued on September 17,1986 a 25772 submitted by the petitioners Atty. Eduardo
Resolution in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432 granting the S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia on December 2,
motions as prayed for. Acting on another motion of the same 1986, in compliance with the order of this Court
nature filed by the petitioners, we issued another Resolution dated dated November 25, 1 986, a Motion for Extension
October 8, 1986 referring the same to the Court Administrator for of Time to File Opposition filed by Maria Provido
implementation by the judge below. Gotera through counsel on December 4, 1986
which was granted by the Court pursuant to its
In compliance with our resolutions, the Regional Trial Court of order dated December 15, 1986. Considering that
Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued two (2) no Opposition was filed within the thirty (30) days
orders dated November 6,1986 and January 6,1987 respectively, to period granted by the Court finding the petition
wit: tenable, the same is hereby GRANTED.
b. Does the Resolution dated September 17, 1986 This prompted the petitioners to file another motion in G.R, No.
include not only the implementation of the writ of 62042 and G.R. No. 64432 to order the trial court to reinstate its
possession but also the cancellation of TCT T- order dated February 12, 1987 directing the Acting Register of
25772 and the subdivision of Lot 4517? (p. 536, Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens in the new certificates of
Rollo — 4432) titles.
Acting on this motion and the other motions filed by the parties, In a resolution dated August 17, 1987, we resolved to refer the said
we issued a resolution dated May 25, 1987 noting all these motions motion to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23 for
and stating therein: appropriate action.
xxx xxx xxx Since respondent Judge Tito Gustilo of the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo, Branch 23 denied the petitioners' motion to reinstate the
Since entry of judgment in G.R. No. 62042 was February 12, 1987 order in another order dated September 17,
made on January 7, 1983 and in G.R. No. 64432 on 1987, the petitioners filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition
May 30, 1984, and all that remains is the and mandamus with preliminary injunction to compel the
implementation of our resolutions, this COURT respondent judge to reinstate his order dated February l2, 1987
RESOLVED to refer the matters concerning the directing the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis
execution of the decisions to the Regional Trial pendens annotated in the new certificates of titles issued in the
Court of Iloilo City for appropriate action and to name of the petitioners.
apply disciplinary sanctions upon whoever
attempts to trifle with the implementation of the The records show that after the Acting Register of Deeds
resolutions of this Court. No further motions in annotated a notice of is pendens on the new certificates of titles
these cases will be entertained by this Court. (p. issued in the name of the petitioners, the petitioners filed in the
615, Rollo-64432) reconstitution case an urgent ex-parte motion to immediately
cancel notice of lis pendens annotated thereon.
In the meantime, in compliance with the Regional Trial Court's
orders dated November 6, 1986 and January 6, 1987, Acting In his order dated February 12, 1987, respondent Judge Gustilo
Register of Deeds AvitoSaclauso annotated the order declaring granted the motion and directed the Acting Register of Deeds of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772 as null and void, cancelled Iloilo to cancel the lis pendens found on Transfer Certificate of Title
the same and issued new certificates of titles numbers T-111560, Nos. T-106098; T-111560; T-111561 and T-111562.
T-111561 and T-111562 in the name of petitioners Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia in lieu of Transfer Certificate of TItle Respondent Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso filed a motion
No. T-106098. for reconsideration of the February 12, 1987 order stating therein:
That the undersigned hereby asks for a can order the cancellation of the Notice of Lis
reconsideration of the said order based on the Pendens. (pp. 68-69, Rollo)
second paragraph of Section 77 of P.D. 1529, to
wit: Adopting these arguments and on the ground that some if not all
of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were not privies to the case
"At any time after final judgment in affected by the Supreme Court resolutions, respondent Judge Tito
favor of the defendant or other Gustilo set aside his February 12, 1987 order and granted the
disposition of the action such as to Acting Register of Deeds' motion for reconsideration.
terminate finally all rights of the
plaintiff in and to the land and/or The issue hinges on whether or not the pendency of the appeal in
buildings involved, in any case in Civil Case No. 15871 with the Court of Appeals prevents the court
which a memorandum or notice of from cancelling the notice of lis pendens in the certificates of titles
Lis Pendens has been registered as of the petitioners which were earlier declared valid and subsisting
provided in the preceding section, by this Court in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432. A corollary
the notice of Lis Pendens shall be issue is on the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to
deemed cancelled upon the annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of
registration of a certificate of the title.
clerk of court in which the action or
proceeding was pending stating
the manner of disposal thereof." Civil Case No. 15871 was a complaint to seek recovery of Lot No.
4517 of Sta. Barbara Cadastre Iloilo, (the same subject matter of
G.R. No 62042 and G.R. No. 64432) from petitioners Baranda and
That the lis pendens under Entry No. 427183 was Hitalia filed by Calixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, Maxima Provido
annotated on T-106098, T-111560, T-111561 and and Perfecta Provido before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
T-111562 by virtue of a case docketed as Civil Branch 23. At the instance of Atty. Hector P. Teodosio, the
Case No. 15871, now pending with the Provides' counsel, a notice of is pendens was annotated on
Intermediate Court of Appeals, entitled, "Calixta petitioners' Certificate of Title No. T-106098 covering Lot No. 4517,
Provido, Ricardo Provido, Sr., Maria Provido and Sta. Barbara Cadastre.
Perfecto Provido, Plaintiffs, versus Eduardo
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, Respondents."
Acting on a motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners, the court
issued an order dated October 24, 1984 dismissing Civil Case No.
That under the above-quoted provisions of P.D. 15871.
152, the cancellation of subject Notice of Lis
Pendens can only be made or deemed cancelled
upon the registration of the certificate of the Clerk The order was then appealed to the Court of Appeals. This appeal
of Court in which the action or proceeding was is the reason why respondent Judge Gustilo recalled the February
pending, stating the manner of disposal thereof. 12, 1987 order directing the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the
notice of lis pendens annotated on the certificates of titles of the
petitioners.
Considering that Civil Case No. 1587, upon which
the Notice of Lis Pendens was based is still pending
with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, only the This petition is impressed with merit.
Intermediate Court of Appeals and not this
Honorable Court in a mere cadastral proceedings Maria Provido Gotera was one of the petitioners in G.R. No. 62042.
Although Calixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, Maxima Provido and
Perfecta Provido, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were not The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is defined in the following
impleaded as parties, it is very clear in the petition that Maria manner:
Provido was acting on behalf of the Providos who allegedly are her
co-owners in Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre as shown by Lis pendens has been conceived to protect the real
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772 issued in her name and the rights of the party causing the registration thereof
names of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871, among others. With the lis pendens duly recorded, he could rest
(Annex "E" G.R. No. 62042, p. 51, Rollo) In fact, one of the issues secure that he would not lose the property or any
raised by petitioners Maria Provido Gotera and Gregoria Perez in part of it. For, notice of lis pendens serves as a
G.R. No. 62042 was as follows: warning to a prospective purchaser or
incumbrancer that the particular property is in
xxx xxx xxx litigation; and that he should keep his hands off the
same, unless of course he intends to gamble on
2. Whether or not, in the same reconstitution the results of the litigation. (Section 24, Rule 14,
proceedings, respondent Judge Midpantao L. Adil RuIes of Court; Jamora v. Duran, et al., 69 Phil. 3,
had the authority to declare as null and void the 11; I Martin, Rules of Court, p. 415, footnote 3,
transfer certificate of title in the name of petitioner citing cases.) (Natanov. Esteban, 18 SCRA 481,
Maria Provido Gotera and her other co-owners. (p. 485-486)
3, Rollo; Emphasis supplied)
The private respondents are not entitled to this protection. The
It thus appears that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were facts obtaining in this case necessitate the application of the rule
privies to G.R. No. 62042 contrary to the trial court's findings that enunciated in the cases of Victoriano v. Rovila (55 Phil. 1000),
they were not. Municipal Council of Paranaque v. Court of First Instance of Rizal
(70 Phil., 363) and Sarmiento v. Ortiz (10 SCRA 158), to the effect
that:
G.R. No. 62042 affirmed the order of the then Court of First
Instance of Iloilo in the reconstitution proceedings declaring TCT
No. 25772 in the name of Providos over Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara We have once held that while ordinarily a notice of
Cadastre null and void for being fraudulently obtained and pendency which has been filed in a proper case,
declaring TCT No. 106098 over the same parcel Lot No. 4517, Sta. cannot be cancelled while the action is pending
Barbara Cadastre in the name of petitioners Eduardo Baranda and and undetermined, the proper court has the
Alfonso Hitalia valid and subsisting. discretionary power to cancel it under peculiar
circumstances, as for instance, where the evidence
so far presented by the plaintiff does not bear out
The decision in G.R. No. 62042 became final and executory on the main allegations of his complaint, and where
March 25,1983 long before Civil Case No. 15871 was filed. the continuances of the trial, for which the plaintiff
is responsible, are unnecessarily delaying the
Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that the Providos, determination of the case to the prejudice of the
private respondents herein, in filing Civil Case No. 15871 were defendant. (Victoriano v. Rovira, supra; The
trying to delay the full implementation of the final decisions in G.R. Municipal Council of Paranaque v. Court of First
No. 62042 as well as G.R. No. 64432 wherein this Court ordered Instance of Rizal, supra)
immediate implementation of the writs of possession and
demolition in the reconstitution proceedings involving Lot No. The facts of this case in relation to the earlier cases brought all the
4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre. way to the Supreme Court illustrate how the private respondents
tried to block but unsuccessfuly the already final decisions in G.R. instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal
No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432. property which complies with all the requisites for registration. ... .
If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny
Parenthetically, respondent Judge Tito Gustilo abused his discretion registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in
in sustaining the respondent Acting Register of Deeds' stand that, writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and advising him
the notice of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of the of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of
petitioners over Lot No. 4571, Barbara Cadastre cannot be this Decree."
cancelled on the ground of pendency of Civil Case No. 15871 with
the Court of Appeals. In upholding the position of the Acting Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt
Register of Deeds based on Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. with regard to the proper step to be taken or memoranda to be
1529, he conveniently forgot the first paragraph thereof which made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument
provides: presented to him for registration or where any party in interest
does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with
Cancellation of lis pendens. — Before final reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted
judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds,
upon Order of the Court after proper showing that or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds. ... ."
the notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the
the rights of the party who caused it to be words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their
registered. It may also be cancelled by the Register meaning must be determined from the language employed and the
of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. (Aparri v.
caused the registration thereof. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231; Insular Bank of Asia and America
Employees' Union [IBAAEU] v. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663) The statute
This Court cannot understand how respondent Judge Gustilo could concerning the function of the Register of Deeds to register
have been misled by the respondent Acting Register of Deeds on instruments in a torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves no
this matter when in fact he was the same Judge who issued the room for construction. According to Webster's Third International
order dismissing Civil Case No. 15871 prompting the private Dictionary of the English Language — the word shall means "ought
respondents to appeal said order dated October 10, 1984 to the to, must, ...obligation used to express a command or exhortation,
Court of Appeals. The records of the main case are still with the used in laws, regulations or directives to express what is
court below but based on the order, it can be safely assumed that mandatory." Hence, the function of a Register of Deeds with
the various pleadings filed by the parties subsequent to the motion reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments
to dismiss filed by the petitioners (the defendants therein) touched and the like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register
on the issue of the validity of TCT No. 25772 in the name of the of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for
Providos over Lot Number 4571, Sta. Barbara Cadastre in the light reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing him to
of the final decisions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432. cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of
titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land. In case of
doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any
The next question to be determined is on the nature of the duty of deed ... or other instrument presented to him, he should have
the Register of Deeds to annotate and/or cancel the notice of lis asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now,
pendens in a torrens certificate of title. the Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds Registration
Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the Decree No. 1529.
duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an
In the ultimate analysis, however, the responsibility for the delays
in the full implementation of this Court's already final resolutions in
G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432 which includes the cancellation
of the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of
the petitioners over Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre falls
on the respondent Judge. He should never have allowed himself to
become part of dilatory tactics, giving as excuse the wrong
impression that Civil Case No. 15871 filed by the private
respondents involves another set of parties claiming Lot No. 4517
under their own Torrens Certificate of Title.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
Up for resolution by the Court is the defendants' It is noticed that the defamatory remarks standing
Motion to Dismiss dated June 4, 1979, which is alone per se had been made the sole cause under
basically anchored on whether or not this Court has the first cause of action, but it is alleged in
jurisdiction over the instant petition. connection with the manner in which the plaintiffs
had been dismissed, and whether the statute of
limitations would apply or not would be a matter of
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs' dismissal evidence.
was without any provocation and that defendant
Aboitiz shouted and maliciously humiliated
plaintiffs and used the words quoted in paragraph IT has been alreadly settled by jurisprudence that
3 thereof. The plaintiffs further allege that they mere asking for reinstatement does not remove
were receiving salaries of P6,600.00 and P4,855.00 from the CFI jurisdiction over the damages. The
a month. So the complaint for civil damages is case must involve unfair labor practices to bring it
clearly not based on an employer-employee within the jurisdiction of the CIR (now NLRC).
relationship but on the manner of plaintiffs'
dismissal and the effects flowing therefrom. (Jovito WHEREFORE, the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
N. Quisaba vs, Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood dated June 4, 1979 is hereby denied.
Co., Inc., et al., No. L-38088, Aug. 30,1974.)
The defendants are hereby directed to interpose
This case was filed on May 10, 1979. The their answer within ten (10) days from receipt
amendatory decree, P.D. 1367, which took effect hereof.
on May 1, 1978 and which provides that Regional
Directors shall not indorse and Labor Arbiters shall
While the trial was underway, the defendants filed a second motion (Garcia v. Martinez, et al., L-47629, May 28, 1979;
to dismiss the complaint dated January 23, 1981, because of 90 SCRA 331-333).
amendments to the Labor Code immediately prior thereto. Acting
on the motion, the trial court issued on May 23, 1981, the following It will also logically follow that plaintiffs can
order: reinterpose the same complaint with the Ministry of
Labor.
Up for resolution by the Court is the defendants'
Motion to Dismiss dated January 23, 1981, on WHEREFORE, let this case be, as it is hereby
grounds not existing when the first Motion to ordered, dismissed, without pronouncement as to
Dismiss dated June 4, 1979 was interposed. The costs.
ground relied upon is the promulgation of P.D. No.
1691 amending Art. 217 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines and Batasan Pambansa Bldg. 70 which A motion to reconsider the above order was filed on July 7, 1981,
took effect on May 1, 1980, amending Art. 248 of but it was only on February 8, 1982, or after a lapse of around
the Labor Code. seven (7) months when the motion was denied.
The Court agrees with defendants that the Plaintiffs have filed the instant petition pursuant to R. A. No. 5440
complaint alleges unfair labor practices which alleging that the respondent court committed the following errors:
under Art. 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by
P.D. 1691, has vested original and exclusive IN DIVESTING ITSELF OF ITS JURISDICTION TO HEAR
jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters, and Art. 248, AND DECIDE CIVIL CASE NO. 33150 DESPITE THE
thereof ... "which may include claims for damages FACT THAT JURISDICTION HAD ALREADY ATTACHED
and other affirmative reliefs." Under the WHICH WAS NOT OUSTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT
amendment, therefore, jurisdiction over employee- ENACTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1691;
employer relations and claims of workers have
been removed from the Courts of First Instance. If IN HOLDING THAT PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1691
it is argued that this case did not arise from SHOULD BE GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT
employer-employee relation, but it cannot be WHEN PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1367 WHICH WAS IN
denied that this case would not have arisen if the FORCE WHEN CIVIL CASE NO. 33150 WAS FILED
plaintiffs had not been employees of defendant AND TRIAL THEREOF HAD COMMENCED, WAS
Pepsi-Cola. Even the alleged defamatory remarks NEVER EXPRESSLY REPEALED BY PRESIDENTIAL
made by defendant Cosme de Aboitiz were said to DECREE 1691, AND IF EVER THERE WAS AN
plaintiffs in the course of their employment, and IMPLIED REPEAL, THE SAME IS NOT FAVORED
the latter were dismissed from such employment. UNDER PREVAILED JURISPRUDENCE;
Hence, the case arose from such employer-
employee relationship which under the new
Presidential Decree 1691 are under the exclusive, IN HOLDING THAT WITH THE REMOVAL BY
original jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. The ruling PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1691 OF THE PROVISO
of this Court with respect to the defendants' first INSERTED IN ARTICLE 217 OF THE LABOR CODE BY
motion to dismiss, therefore, no longer holds as the PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1367, THE LABOR
positive law has been subsequently issued and ARBITERS HAVE ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER
being a curative law, can be applied retroactively CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE
REGULAR COURTS, WHEN A READING OF ARTICLE
217 WITHOUT THE PROVISO IN QUESTION READILY AQUINO, J.,dissenting:
REVEALS THAT JURISDICTION OVER DAMAGE
CLAIMS IS STILL VESTED WITH THE REGULAR I dissent with due deference to the opinion penned by Mr. Justice
COURTS; Abad Santos.
IN DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION CIVIL This case is about the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to
CASE NO. 33150 THEREBY VIOLATING THE entertain an action for damages arising from the alleged
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS disgraceful termination of petitioners' employment.
NOTABLY THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
Ernesto Medina, the manager of the Muntinlupa plant of Pepsi-Cola
The pivotal question to Our mind is whether or not the Labor Code Bottling Company of the Philippines with a monthly salary of
has any relevance to the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. For if the P6,600, and Jose G. Ong, Pepsi's controller in the same plant with a
Labor Code has no relevance, any discussion concerning the monthly salary of P4,855, were summarily dismissed by Cosme de
statutes amending it and whether or not they have retroactive Aboitiz, Pepsi's president and chief executive officer, on December
effect is unnecessary. 20, 1977 for having allegedly delayed the use of promotional
crowns (pp. 29-31, Rollo),
It is obvious from the complaint that the plaintiffs have not alleged
any unfair labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for damages for The two signed on January 5, 1978 letters of resignation and
tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being quitclaims and were paid P93,063 and P84,386 as separation pay,
the case, the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor respectively. However, before receiving those amounts, Medina
Code. It results that the orders under review are based on a wrong and Ong sent by registered mail to Aboitiz letters wherein they
premise. indicated that they objected to their illegal dismissal and that they
would sign the quitclaim and resignation papers "under protest"
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the respondent judge is (pp. 32, 270-275, Rollo).
hereby ordered to reinstate Civil Case No. 33150 and render a
decision on the merits. Costs against the private respondents. More than a month after their dismissal, or on January 27, 1978,
Medina and Ong filed with the Ministry of Labor, a complaint for
SO ORDERED. illegal dismissal. They prayed for reinstatement with full
backwages and, in the alternative, they prayed for additional
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr. Guerrero, De Castro and separation pay of P72,904 for Medina and P35,927 for Ong (NLRC
Escolin, JJ., concur. Case No. R4-STF-1-492-78, pp. 40, 288-299, Rollo).
Judge Bartolome in her order of May 23, 1981 dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction. That order of dismissal is assailed in this
appeal by Medina and Ong under Republic Act No. 5440.
The appealed resolution appears to be based upon a reading of the It is, furthermore, admitted that the requisite registration fees were
cited Section 56 of PD No. 1529, and particularly of the provision fully paid and that the certificate of sale was registrable on its face.
11
therein referring to the Register's act of making a primary entry as DBP, therefore, complied with all that was required of it for
" ... a preliminary process in registration ...," as depriving of any purposes of both primary entry and annotation of the certificate of
effect a primary entry without a corresponding annotation thereof sale. It cannot be blamed that annotation could not be made
on the certificate of title to which the instrument subject of said contemporaneously with the entry because the originals of the
entry refers. subject certificates of title were missing and could not be found,
since it had nothing to do with their safekeeping. If anyone was
responsible for failure of annotation, it was the Register of Deeds
That view fails to find support from a consideration of entire who was chargeable with the keeping and custody of those
context of said Section 56 which in another part also provides that documents.
the instrument subject of a primary entry "... shall be regarded as
registered from the time so noted ...," and, at the very least, gives
such entry from the moment of its making the effect of putting the It does not, therefore, make sense to require DBP to repeat the
whole world on notice of the existence the instrument on entered. process of primary entry, paying anew the entry fees as the
Such effect (of registration) clearly attaches to the mere making of appealed resolution disposes, in order to procure annotation which
the entry without regard to the subsequent step of annotating a through no fault on its part, had to be deferred until the originals of
memorandum of the instrument subject of the entry on the the certificates of title were found or reconstituted. That it is hardly
certificate of title to which it refers. Indeed, said Section, in also just or equitable to do so also seems to have occurred to the
providing that the annotation, "... when made ... shall bear the Solicitor General, who dilutes his argument in support of the
same date ..." as the entry, may be said to contemplate appealed resolution with the suggestion that "... the making of a
unspecified intervals of time occurring between the making of a new entry ... would be the more orderly procedure," and that DBP
primary entry and that of the corresponding annotation on the should not be made to pay filing fees anew. 12
certificate of title without robbing the entry of the effect of being
equivalent to registration. Neither, therefore, is the implication in Jurisprudence on the subject, while it has not been entirely
the appealed resolution that annotation must annotation entry consistent, is not wanting. In Government vs. Aballe, 13 this Court
immediately or in short order justified by the language of Section ruled that " ... (a)lthough a notice of attachment has not been
56. noted on the certificate of title, its notation in the book of entry of
the register of deeds produces all the effects which the law gives
Furthermore, it is amply clear that the four-year hiatus between to its registration or inscription." Seemingly, that ruling was
primary entry and proposed annotation in this case has not been of abandoned in the wartime case of Basa vs. De la Rama, 14 where it
DBP's making. Though it was under no necessity to present the was held that the entry of an instrument in the primary entry book
owner's duplicates of the certificates of title affected for purposes produces no legal effect unless a memorandum thereof is noted on
the certificate of title. Villasor vs. Camon, 15 however, clarified that on October 17, 1928, conveying her interest in the
Aballe was never really abandoned or reversed insofar as it applied land to the appellant, her interest therein had
to involuntary transactions. Said the Court in that case, which already been attached by the provincial sheriff and
involved a voluntary transactions — a deed of assignment of rights also by him at public auction to the Philippine
in a parcel of land and its improvements: National Bank, and the certificate of sale filed in
the office of the register of deeds in accordance
The appellant cannot invoke in support of her with the law (sections 429 and 450 of the Code of
contention, the ruling laid down in the case of Civil Procedure). It was not necessary for the sheriff
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Aballe, 60 to present the owner's duplicate of the certificate
Phil., 986, which was followed in Director of Lands of title when he filed notice of attachment with the
vs. Abad, 61 Phil. 479, to the effect that an register of deeds, nor was it necessary for the
attachment entered upon the entry book is duly Philippine National Bank to present the owner's
registered although the duplicate certificate is not duplicate when the bank filed its certificate of sale
presented at the time of registration to the register for registration (sections 71 and 72 of Act No. 496).
of deeds. Appellant cannot invoked said ruling, not
because it has been abandoned by the Supreme Later cases appear to have applied the Aballe ruling that entry in
Court during the Japanese occupation in the case the day book, even without the corresponding annotation on the
of Bass VS. De la Rama, et al., ... in which it was certificate of title, is equivalent to, or produces the effect of,
said that "we are constrained to abandon the registration to voluntary transactions, provided the requisite fees
ruling in said two cases,"- it was not abandoned for are paid and the owner's duplicates of the certificates of title
the decision was concurred by only two justices or affected are presented. Thus, in Levin vs. Bass, et al., 17 it was
less than a majority, and said statement was not held:
necessary or an obiter dictum and against the law,
as correctly stated by the two associate justices ... Under the Torrens system the act of registration
who dissented and only concurred in the result, but is the operative act to convey and affect the land.
because said ruling, subsisting and in force, does Do the entry in the day book of a deed of sale
not support appellant's contention, for it is only which was presented and filed together with
applicable to registration of involuntary owner's duplicate certificate of title which the
instruments, such as attachment, or other liens office of the Registrar of Deeds and full payment of
and adverse claims of any description. This ruling registration fees constitute a complete act of
is correct or in conformity with the provisions of registration which operates to convey and affect
section 72 of Act No. 496, which do not require the the land? In voluntary registration, such as a sale,
production by the registrant of the duplicate mortgage, lease and the like, if the owner's
certificate of the land to be affected, ... (emphasis duplicate certificate be not surrendered and
supplied) presented or if no payment of registration fees be
made within 15 days, entry in the day book of the
The decision in Villasor also quoted with approval the following deed of sale does not operate to convey and affect
excerpt from an earlier case, Philippine National Bank vs. the land sold. In involuntary registration, such as
Fernandez. 16 an attachment, levy upon execution, lis pendens
and the like entry thereof in the day book is a
Coming now to the second ground on which the sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse
appellant bases his claims, we find that when claim. ... The pronouncement of the court below is
Simona Fausa executed the document, Exhibit 3, to the effect that an innocent purchaser for value
has no right to the property because he is not a upon payment of the filing fees, be entered in the
holder of a certificate of title to such property entry book — also called day book in the same
acquired by him for value and in good faith. It section — with notation of the year, month, day,
amounts to holding that for failure of the Registrar hour, and minute of their reception and that "they
of Deeds to comply and perform his duty, an shall be regarded as registered from the moment
innocent purchaser for value loses that character- so noted." And applying this provision in the cases
he is not an "innocent holder for value of a of Levin vs. Bass, etc., G.R. Nos. L-4340 to 4346,
certificate of title." ... Neither violence to, nor decided on May 28, 1952, this Court held that "an
stretching of the meaning of, the law would be innocent purchaser for value of registered land
done, if we should hold that an innocent purchaser becomes the registered owner and in
for value of registered land becomes the registered contemplation of law the holder of a certificate
owner and in contemplation of law the holder of a thereof the moment he presents and files a duly
certificate thereof the moment he presents the notarized and lawful deed of sale and the same is
owner's duplicate certificate of title to the property entered on the day book and at the same time he
sold and pays the full amount of registration fees, surrenders or presents the owner's duplicate
because what remains to be done lies not within certificate of title to the property sold and pays the
his power to perform. The Registrar of Deeds is in full amount of registration fees, because what
duty bound to perform it. We believe that is a remains to be done lies not within his power to
reasonable and practical interpretation of the law perform."
under considerations-a construction which would
lead to no inconsistency and injustice. (emphasis Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone produces the
supplied) effect of registration, whether the transaction entered is a
voluntary or an involuntary one, so long as the registrant has
A similar ruling was made in Potenciano vs. Dineros, et al., 18 complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and
concerning land a deed of sale of which was entered in the day annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty
book upon payment of the corresponding fees and presentation of incumbent solely on the register of deeds.
the owner's duplicate of the covering certificate of title, on
November 4, 1944. However, due to the confusion arising from the Therefore, without necessarily holding that annotation of a primary
bombing of Manila (this having happened during the final months entry on the original of the certificate of title may be deferred
of the Japanese Occupation), the papers presented by the indefinitely without prejudice to the legal effect of said entry, the
registrant were either lost or destroyed, no certificate of title was Court rules that in the particular situation here obtaining,
issued to him and as far as the records of the Register of Deeds annotation of the disputed entry on the reconstituted originals of
showed, the property remained in the name of the vendor. Another the certificates of title to which it refers is entirely proper and
party later sued the vendor, obtained judgment against him and justified. To hold said entry "ineffective," as does the appealed
purchased the property on execution sale. In affirming judgment resolution, amounts to declaring that it did not, and does not,
annulling the execution sale in an action brought by the original protect the registrant (DBP) from claims arising, or transactions
purchaser, this Court held: made, thereafter which are adverse to or in derogation of the
rights created or conveyed by the transaction thus entered. That,
The judgment creditor contends that entry of the surely, is a result that is neither just nor can, by any reasonable
deed in the day book is not sufficient registration. interpretation of Section 56 of PD 1529, be asserted as warranted
Both upon law and authority this contention must by its terms.
be rejected. Section 56 of the Land Registration Act
says that deeds relating to registered land shall,
The qualms implicit in the query of the respondent (and present 7 Docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 06693.
appellee) register of deeds about making annotation of an entry
effected before he assumed that office are more imagined than 8 Resolution of February 26, 1987; Record, pp. 31-
real. He would only be making a memorandum of an instrument 33.
and of its entry based on or reciting details which are already of
indubitable record and, pursuant to the express command of the
law, giving said memorandum the same date as the entry. No part 9 Section 72 of Act No. 496, now section 71 of PD
of that function is exclusive to the incumbent of the office at the 1529 see also citations from Villasor vs. Camon and
time entry was made or is forbidden to any of his successors. Phil. National Bank vs. Fernandez, infra.
WHEREFORE, the appealed resolution of the Acting Commissioner 10 Record of LRC Consulta No. 1411, pp- 8, 9.
of Land Registration is SET ASIDE. The respondent-appellee
Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, or his successor, is ordered to 11 Id., at p. 2.
annotate on the originals of the reconstituted Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos. NT-149033 and NT-149034 of his Registry a 12 Brief for the Appellee, at p. 25 of Record p. 18.
memorandum of the certificate of sale in favor of appellant
Development Bank of the Philippines as entered under Entry No.
8191 dated June 13, 1980 of the Primary Entry (Day) Book of said 13 60 Phil. 986; see also Director of Lands vs.
Registry. No pronouncement as to costs. Abad, 61 Phil. 479.
Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur. 15 89 Phil. 404, 410.
16 61 Phil. 448.
Appeal by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation from a resolution The question to determine is whether the absorption or acquisition
adopted on 15 June 1959 by the Land Registration Commission by the Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company, Inc., the name
upholding the refusal by the Register of Deeds of Pampanga to of which was later on changed to Luzon Stevedoring Corporation,
register a contract entitled Merger Agreement without the fees for the herein appellant, of the assets or property of the Luzon
its registration being paid first (LRC Consulta No. 247). Stevedoring Company, Inc. (LUSTEVECO), as stipulated in the
Merger Agreement entered into by and between the two
On 16 October 1958 the Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. corporations, is a transfer or conveyance contemplated by
(LUSTEVECO), and the Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company, Republic Act No. 928 subject to payment of registration fees.
Inc. (VISTRANCO), both domestic corporations, entered into a
Merger Agreement (Annex B) Stipulating that — In the merger agreement two juridical persons took part as parties
thereto: the Luzon Stevedoring Company, inc. (LUSTEVECO) and
LUSTEVECO hereby conveys, assigns and transfers all of its the Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company, Inc. (VISTRANCO).
business, property, assets and goodwill ... and in short, the The former was merged into the latter. The disposition of property
totality of all its assets reflected in the Balance Sheet of of the former is stipulated in paragraph 1 of the merger agreement
LUSTEVECO as of June 30, 1958, . . . (Annex B), quoted on page 1 of this opinion, and in paragraph 3
which provides in part: .1äwphï1.ñët
to the Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company, Inc., whose
corporate name was to be changed to Luzon Stevedoring VISTRANCO hereby accepts the conveyance, assignments,
Corporation. On 18 February 1959 the Luzon Stevedoring and transfers mentioned hereinabove . . . .
Corporation requested the Registrar of Deeds of Pampanga to
cancel transfer certificates of title Nos. 10099, 6040, 8820, 8819, Under said paragraphs it is clear that the Luzon Stevedoring
8822 and 8821 covering several parcels of land owned by the Company, Inc. (LUSTEVECO) conveyed, assigned, transferred,
Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. in Pampanga and to issue the parted with, passed to and vested in the Visayan Stevedore
"corresponding number of certificates" "in the name of Luzon Transportation Company, Inc. (VISTRANCO), later on changed to
Stevedoring Corporation without the payment of registration Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, the ownership, possession, use
fees ..." (Annex A). On 23 February 1959 the Registrar of Deeds of and control of all its business, property, assets and goodwill,
Pampanga replied that the merger agreement involved transfer or including its real property, etc. It hardly could be claimed and
conveyance of property and that unless the fees for its registration contended that in the merger agreement in question no transfer or
be paid first the agreement could not be registered (Annex F). In conveyance of property was effectuated which would take it away
another letter dated 26 February 1959 the Luzon Stevedoring from the payment of fees required by paragraphs C-16 and C-17,
Corporation disagreed with such view, on the ground that the section 114, Act 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration
transfer of assets involved in the merger was not that Act, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 117 and 928.
contemplated by paragraphs C-16 and C-17 of Republic Act No.
928 and requested the Registrar of Deeds of Pampanga to
The appellant also contends that "the transfer or conveyance
contemplated in par. C-16 of Republic Act No. 928 is that in which
a consideration is an essential requisite for its efficacy." The
contention is without merit. Not the consideration of a transfer or
conveyance of property but the service to be rendered by the
Registrar of Deeds is the reason for the requirement of the
payment of Republic Act No. 928 expressly provides that —
STIPULATION OF FACTS
On January 22, 1972, plaintiff filed a complaint 2. That the By-laws of the association, copy of
against the defendant in the municipal court of which as amended is attached hereto as Annex 'B',
Makati, Rizal, for the collection of the amount of P provides for automatic membership in the
2,100 plus penalty of 12% per annum and P 751.30 association for every owner and purchaser of lots
as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. The located inside the Bel Air Village as defined and
sum of P 2,100 represents the association dues bounded in the Articles of Incorporation;
assessed on the lot owned by the defendant as
member of the plaintiff association. On February
3. That without applying for membership in plaintiff
16, 1972, defendant filed an answer traversing all
association, defendant in this case, like the other
the material allegations of the complaint and set
members, automatically became a member
up the following special defenses; 1) That there is
because he is the registered owner of a lot located
no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the
inside the Bel Air Village;
defendant; 2) that the collection of alleged dues
from its members is in reality an unlawful exercise
of the power of taxation which is beyond the
4. That in accordance with the By-Laws of the square meters under Transfer Certificate of Title
plaintiff, the association is run and managed by a No. 81136 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal;
Board of Governors who (sic) exercises, among
other things, the power to assess and collect 8. That pursuant to the powers granted under the
against every owner of the lot inside the Bel Air By-laws of the association, the Board of Governors
Village, certain amounts for the operation and has made the following assessment on defendant's
activities of the association; property on the basis of the area per square meter
of the lot owned by him as follows:
5. That pursuant to the powers granted under the
By-Laws, the Board of Governors have assessed 1962—525 sq. meters x P 0.30—P 157.50
the owners of the lots inside the Bel Air Village, a
sum to be paid either quarterly, semi-annually or
annually, computed on the basis of the area per 1963—525 sq. meters x P 0.30—P 157.50
square meter of the lot owned by every member as
follows: 1964—525 sq. meters x P 0.30—P 157.50
a. During the period from 1962- 1965—525 sq. meters x P 0.35—P 183.75
1964, the basis of the assessment
is P 0.30 for every square meter of 1966—525 sq. meters x P 0.35—P 183.75
lot owned by the members inside
the Bel Air Village compound;
1967—525 sq. meters x P 0.35—P 183.75
b. From l965-1968, the assessment
was increased to P 0.35 for every 1968—525 sq. meters x P 0.35—P 183.75
square meter;
1969—525 sq. meters x P 0.40—P 210.00
c. From 1969-1971, the
assessment was further increased 1970—525 sq. meters x P 0.40—P 210.00
to P 0.40 for every square meter;
1971—525 sq. meters x P 0.40—P 210.00
d. Starting 1972, the assessment
was changed to P0.50 for every 1972—525 sq. meters x P 0.50—P 262.50
square meter of the lot owned by
the members;
TOTAL--------P 2,100.00
6. That under the By-laws, the foregoing
assessments if not paid when due, constitute a lien 9. That the total amount of P 2,100 alleged in
on the lots of the owners inside the Bel Air Village; paragraph 4 of the complaint represents the
assessments of the plaintiff on the defendant in
accordance with the computation stated in
7. That defendant is the owner of a lot located paragraph 8 above;
inside the Bel Air Village with an area of 525
10. That defendant protested the above DATED MAY 18, 1972
assessments and refused to pay the same inspite
of repeated demands: COME NOW the undersigned attorneys for plaintiff
and defendant in the above a title case, and to his
11. That as per Resolution No. 2-65 of the Board of Honorable Court hereby respectfully submit the
Governors, copy hereof is attached as Annex 'C', all following additional stipulation by incorporating to
annual association dues not paid on or before he Stipulation of Facts , dated May 18, 1972, the
September 30 are considered delinquent and Bel Air Village Association, Inc. 1971 Annual
imposed an interest of 12% per annum until fully Report, to be marked as Annex "E" and made an
paid; integral part thereof.
12. That they are attaching to this stipulation as Manila for Makati, Rizal
Annex 'D', the brochure of the association which
embodies the deed of restriction and rules & June 3, 1972.
regulations governing the lot owners inside the Bel
Air Village.
(SGD.) FRANCISCO DIZON (SGD.) F.R. ARGUELLES,
JR.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered with the foregoing
stipulation of facts. Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for PLaintiff
Manila for Makati, Rizal 517 Federation Center Bldg. 517 Federation Center
Bldg.
May 18th, 1972.
Binondo, Manila Dasmarinas cor. Muelle de
(SGD.) FRANCISCO S. DIZON (SGD.) F.R.
ARGUELLES, JR. Binondo, Manila
Counsel for Defendant Counsel for Plaintiff The parties having filed their respective
memoranda, the inferior court rendered its
decision dated July 31, 1972 in favor of the plaintiff
Suite 311 ABC Building 517 Federation Center pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
Bldg.
xxx xxx xxx
Escolta, Manila Binondo, Manila
xxx xxx xxx
The parties submitted an addendum to stipulation
of facts as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the principal
ADDENDUM TO STIPULATION OF FACTS amount of P 2,100.00 plus interest thereon at the
rate of 12% annually from the year 1962 until the
aforesaid amount is fully paid and to pay plaintiff 2) Respondent association has no power to compel
the amount of P 300.00 as and for attorney's fees the petitioner to pay the assessment for lack of
and to pay the costs of suit. privity of contract.
The decision of the Municipal Court of Makati was affirmed. The question, therefore, boils down to whether or not the petitioner
is bound by such annotation.
Defendant Dionisio then filed a petition for review of the Court of
First Instance decision with the Court of Appeals. As stated earlier, Section 39 of Art. 496 (The Land Registration Act) states:
the appellate court elevated the case to us the issues raised being
purely questions of law. Sec. 39. Every person receiving a certificate of title
in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
The resolution of the petition hinges on whether or not the subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes
respondent association can lawfully collect the questioned dues a certificate of title for value in good faith shall
from the petitioner. hold the same free of all encumbrances except
those noted on said certificate ... (Emphasis
The petitioner insists that he is not liable to pay the dues on the supplied.)
following grounds:
Thus, in the case of Tanchoco v. Aquino, (154 SCRA 1 [1987]), we
1) The questioned assessment is a property tax ruled that purchasers of a registered land are bound by the
outside the corporate power of respondent annotations found at the back of the certificate of title covering the
association to impose. subject parcel of land. We stated:
... that when petitioners purchased on April 6, 1964 dues collected are intended for garbage collection, salary of
from Rafael Viola an undivided (1/2) portion of Lot security guards, cleaning and maintenance of streets and street
314 and then on January 5, 1965 a 6/7 portion of lights and establishments of parks. The amount to be paid by each
the other half of Lot 314 there was at the back of lot owner is computed on the basis of the area per square meter of
TCT No. 11682 covering Lot 314 an annotation of a the lot owned by every member.
notice of lis pendens in favor of Donato Lajom,
under Entry No. 19553/T-14707 (Rollo, p. 23), as The mode of payment as well as the purposes for which the dues
follows: are intended clearly indicate that the dues are not in the concept
of a property tax as claimed by the petitioner. They are shares in
Entry No. 19553/T-14707; Kind-Lis pendens in favor the common expenses for necessary services. A property tax is
of Donato Lajom; Conditions-1/2 of the properties assessed according to the value of the property (Philippine Transit
described in this title is the object of a complaint Association v. Treasurer of the City of Manila, et al. 83 Phil. 722
filed in Civil Case No. 8077 of the C.F.I. of N.E.; [1949]) but the basis of the sharing in this case is the area of the
date of instrument-Dec. 16, 1949; Date of lot. The basis appears reasonable. The dues are fees which a
Inscription-Jan. 11, 1950 at 2:00 p.m. member of the respondent association is required to pay as his
contribution to the expenses incurred by the respondent
Petitioner Pastor Tanchoco who holds office as association in hiring security guards, cleaning and maintaining
Asst. Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija (Rollo, p. 30) streets, street lights and other community projects for the benefit
could not have missed the import of such of all residents within the Bel-Air Village. These expenses are
annotation. It was an announcement to the whole necessary, valid, and reasonable for the particular community
world that a particular real property is in litigation, involved.
serving as a warning that one who acquires an
interest over said property does so at his own risk, The petitioner also objects to the assessment on the ground that it
or that he gambles on the result of the litigation is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, oppressive and
over said property. Since petitioners herein bought confiscatory. According to him the assessment is oppressive
the land in question with the knowledge of the because the amount assessed is not based on benefits but on the
existing encumbrances thereon, they cannot size of the area of the lot, discriminatory and unreasonable
invoke the right of purchasers in good faith, and because only the owners of the lots are required to pay the
they cannot likewise have acquired better rights questioned assessment and not the residents who are only renting
than those of their predecessors in interest inside the village; and confiscatory because under the by-Laws of
(Constantino v. Espiritu, 45 SCRA 557 [1972])" the respondent association, the latter holds a lien on the property
assessed if the amount is not paid.
In effect, the petitioner's contention that he has no privity of
contract with the respondent association is not persuasive. When We agree with the lower court's findings, to wit:
the petitioner voluntarily bought the subject parcel of land it was
understood that he took the same free of all encumbrances except The limitations upon the ownership of the
notations at the back of the certificate of title, among them, that defendant as clearly imposed in the annotations of
he automatically becomes a member of the respondent TCT No. 81136 do not contravene provisions of
association. laws, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy. Since these limitations have been imposed
One of the obligations of a member of the respondent association upon the contract of sale as admitted in the
is to pay certain amounts for the operation and activities of the stipulation of facts, it is obvious that the annotation
association which is being collected by the Board of Governors. The of said lien and encumbrance that the defendant
automatically becomes a member of the plaintiff monthly dues in question upon the defendant. The
association and subject to its rules, regulations or exhibits annexed to the stipulation of facts
resolutions is valid, binding and enforceable. describe the purpose or goals for which these
monthly dues assessed upon the members of the
The contention that this lien collides with the plaintiff including the defendant are to be
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association disbursed. They are intended for garbage
is not tenable. The transaction between the collection, salary of security guards, cleaning and
defendants and the original seller (defendant's maintenance of streets, establishment of parks,
immediate predecessor) of the land covered by etc. Living in this modern, complex society has
TCT No. 81136 is a sale and the conditions have raised complex problems of security, sanitation,
been validly imposed by the said vendor/the same communitarian comfort and convenience and it is
not being contrary to law, morals and good now a recognized necessity that members of the
customs and public policy. The fact that it has been community must organize themselves for the
approved by the Land Registration Commission did successful solution of these problems. Goals
not make it a governmental act subject to the intended for the promotion of their safety and
constitutional restriction against infringement of security, peace, comfort, and general welfare
the right of association. The constitutional cannot be categorized as unreasonable. Indeed,
proscription that no person can be compelled to be the essence of community life is association and
a member of an association against his will applies cooperation for without these such broader welfare
only to government acts and not to private goals cannot be attained. It is for these reasons
transactions like the one in question. that modem subdivisions are imposing
encumbrance upon titles of prospective lot buyers
a limitation upon ownership of the said buyers that
The defendant cannot legally maintain that he is they automatically become members of
compelled to be a member of the association homeowners' association living within the
against his will because the limitation is imposed community of the subdivision.
upon his ownership of property. If he does not
desire to comply with the annotation or lien in
question he can at any time exercise his inviolable Even assuming that defendant's ownership and
freedom of disposing of the property and free enjoyment of the lot covered by TCT No. 81136 is
himself from the burden of becoming a member of limited because of the burden of being a member
the plaintiff association. After all, it is not imposed of plaintiff association the goals and objectives of
upon him personally but upon his ownership of the the association are far greater because they apply
property. The limitation and restriction is a to and affect the community at large. It can be
limitation that follows the land whoever is its justified on legal grounds that a person's
owner. It does not inhere in the person of the enjoyment of ownership may be restricted and
defendant. limited if to do so the welfare of the community of
which he is a member is promoted and attained.
These benefits in which the defendant participates
The Court therefore holds that the lien or more than offset the burden and inconvenience
encumbrance or limitation imposed upon TCT No. that he may suffer.
81136 is valid.
It is contended that the dues are assessed not only
The second question has reference to the upon owners who have residences and houses on
reasonableness of the resolution assessing the
their lots but even upon those owners whose lots
are vacant or are being leased to others. It is
therefore argued that this is discriminatory. The
Court disagrees. When the defendant bought the
lot in question, it is assumed that he is going to
reside in this place. The limitation or encumbrance
assailed in the case at bar is for the assurance that
the buyer of the lot will bird his house and live in
the Bel Air Village. Otherwise, the defendant can
just speculate and sell his lot a higher price and
defeat the very purposes for which the
encumbrance is imposed.
The lower court states that the defendant has occupied the lot for
ten years up to the time of the rendition of judgement. On grounds
of equity alone, he should contribute his share in the community
expenses for security, street lights, maintenance of streets, and
other services.
SO ORDERED.
Respondent Villanueva sought to have the sale registered and title IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Commission
issued in her favor, free of any encumbrance, but petitioners holds that the deed of sale may be registered;
Leviste and Berthelsen objected alleging that they had registered Transfer Certificate of Title No. 108425 may be
adverse claims and attachments. The Register of Deeds refused to partially cancelled; and a new transfer certificate of
issue a new title to Villanueva without carrying over (A) the two title covering Lot 16 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-
annotations registered prior to Villanueva's adverse claim, namely, 66800 may be issued to Maria Villanueva free of
the notice of lis pendens (Entry No. 7115) made on September 7, any encumbrance.
1964 referring to a pending Civil Case No. 2489-P in the Court of
1
First Instance of Rizal entitled Vivencio R. de Guzman vs. Z. Garcia SO ORDERED.
Realty, Inc.; and the adverse claim (Entry No. 55205) of J. Antonio
In disposing of the consulta, the Commission opined: COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.
108425).
A registered notice of adverse claim takes priority
over all subsequent encumbrances and becomes III
subject only to all annotations registered prior to it,
except legal liens While the notice of adverse claim THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN NOT
of Maria Villanueva appears to be subject to the CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT,
notice of lis pendens filed in connection with Civil MARIA VILLANUEVA, FAILED TO EXHAUST THE
Case No. 2489-P of the Court of First Instance of REMEDY OF REGISTERING THE 'AGREEMENT TO
Rizal and to the notice of adverse claim of J. SELL' SHE EXECUTED WITH Z. GARCIA REALTY, INC.
Antonio C. Leviste, both having been registered 2
In the case at bar, it does not appear that Villanueva attempted to SO ORDERED.
register the agreement to sell under Section 52 of Act No. 496 and
that the registered owner, Garcia Realty, refused to surrender the
duplicate certificate for the annotation of said instrument. Instead, Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and De
Villanueva merely filed an adverse claim based on said agreement Castro, JJ., concur.
to sell Considering that Section 62 of the Land Registration Act
prescribes the procedure for the registration of Villanueva's
interest less than an estate in fee simple on the disputed lot and
there being no showing of her inability to produce the owner's #Footnotes
duplicate certificate, the remedy provided in Section 110 of Act
496, which was resorted to by Villanueva, is, therefore, ineffective
for the purpose of protecting her right or interest on the disputed 1 p. 35, Original Record.
lot.
2 pp. 6-7, Petitioner's Brief.
Inasmuch as the adverse claim filed by Villanueva was not valid,
the same did not have the effect of a conveyance of her right or 3 see Santos vs. Robledo, 28 Phil. 245; Co-Trongco
interest on the disputed lot and could not prejudice any right that vs. Co-Gura, 1 Phil. 210.
may have arisen thereafter in favor of third parties. Consequently,
the attachments of Berthelsen, Leviste, and that in Civil Case No. 4 Section 52, Act No. 496.
2489-P of the Court of First Instance of Rizal covering the disputed
lot are superior to that acquired by Villanueva and will have to be
carried over to the new title to be issued in her favor. Thus, Section 5 Ramirez vs. Causing, 101 Phil. 1009 (1957);
of Act 496 provides that: Villasor vs. Camon, 89 Phil. 404, 412 [1951].
If at the time of any transfer there appear upon the 6 Register of Deeds of Manila vs. Tinoco, 95 Phil.
registration book encumbrances or claims adverse 818 [1954].
to the title of the registered owner, they shall be
stated in the new certificate or certificates, except 7 Villasor vs. Camon, supra.
so far as they may be simultaneously released or
discharged. 8 Ty Sin Tei vs. Lee Dy Piao, 103 Phil. (1958).