Property rights of foreigners married to or living in with Filipino citizens; Can foreigners own land and other real properties in the Philippines?

The Supreme Court in the August 2006 case of Elena Buenaventura Muller vs. Helmut Muller, G.R. No. 149615, clarified the issue of ownership of houses and lands by foreigners married to Filipino citizens.

On the other hand, the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Borromeo vs. Descallar answered the question: “What are the rights of a foreigner (and his successor-in-interest) who acquired real properties in the country as against his former Filipina girlfriend in whose sole name the properties were registered under the Torrens system?”

Before discussing these cases, however, let’s have a brief overview:

What is the Constitutional provision on foreign ownership of land in the Philippines?
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:

Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

The rule clearly therefore is that aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands.

Note: The Supreme Court in the case of “United Church Board for World Ministries v. Sebastian” reiterated the consistent ruling that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.

What is the purpose for this Constitutional prohibition?
The primary purpose of the Constitutional provision is the conservation of the national patrimony. In the classic case of Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, the Supreme Court held:

Under section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated," and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that section 5 is included in Article XIII, and it reads as follows:

"Sec. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."

This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which agricultural resources may leak into aliens' hands. It would certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, they may be freely so alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens.

Does the term “private agricultural lands” exclude residential lots from the prohibition?
If the term “private agricultural lands” is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the result would be that “aliens may freely acquire and possess not only residential lots and houses for themselves but entire subdivisions, and whole towns and cities,” and that “they may validly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools, health and vacation resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, airfields, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, in appellant's words, strictly agricultural.” That this is obnoxious to the conservative spirit of the Constitution is beyond question.

What are the exceptions to the restriction on foreigners’ acquisition of land in the Philippines?

[1] Purchase by a former natural-born Filipino citizen subject to the limitations prescribed by Batas Pambansa 185 and R.A. 8179
[2] Acquisition before the 1935 Constitution
[3] Purchase of not more than 40% interest in a condominium project
[4] Acquisition through hereditary succession if the foreigner is a legal or natural heir

What are the limitations on land ownership by former Filipino citizens?
Before the enactment of Republic Act 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003), Filipinos who were naturalized as U.S. citizens were deemed to have lost their Filipino citizenship.

Under RA 9255, former Filipinos who became naturalized citizens of foreign countries are deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship. Thus they can enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Filipino regarding land ownership in the Philippines.

If a former Filipino who is now a naturalized citizen of a foreign country does not want however to avail of the Dual Citizen Law in the Philippines, he or she can still acquire land based on BP (Batas Pambansa) 185 and RA (Republic Act) 8179 but subject to the following limitations:

For residential use (BP 185 enacted in March 1982): Up to 1,000 square meters of residential land, and pp to one (1) hectare of agricultural of farm land

For business / commercial use (RA 8179 which amended the Foreign Investment Act of 1991): Up to 5,000 square meters of urban land, and p to three (3) hectares of rural land

Can foreigners own condominium units or corporations?
The Condominium Act of the Philippines, R.A. 4726, expressly allows foreigners to acquire condominium units and shares in condominium corporations provided that the total controlling interest of foreigners in the condominium project does not exceed 40 percent. (Condominium owners have exclusive rights over the space “encompassed by the walls, ceilings, and floors” of their units but are only co-owners of the common areas, such as the hallways, lobbies, entrances and exits, and parking bays.)

What is meant by ownership on the basis of hereditary succession?
When the foreigner is married to a Filipino citizen, and the spouse dies, the non-Filipino as the natural heir will become the legal owner of the property. Children, as legal heirs, may also own real property. Every natural child, legitimate or illegitimate can inherit real property even if he or she does not hold Filipino citizenship.

Filipinos who are naturalized as U.S. citizens lose their Filipino citizenship. Despite the loss of citizenship, they remain eligible to acquire real property in the Philippines by hereditary succession. Children born to them in the U.S. are also eligible to inherit real property even if they are U.S. citizens.

Please take note however that ‘hereditary succession” refers to intestate succession wherein the person dies without leaving a last will and testament. Transfer of ownership of land cannot be done through a last will and testament.

What are the property rights of a foreigner married to a Filipino citizen?
1. The foreigner can legally own a house or building in the Philippines as long as he or she does not own the land on which the structure is built. For this purpose, the documents like Deed of Sale can contain the name of the foreigner-spouse, except for the title. (Please take note of the Muller case which we will discuss below.)

2. When the foreigner is married to a Filipino citizen, and the spouse dies, the non-Filipino as the natural heir will become the legal owner of the property.

One website states that “in the event of death of the Filipino spouse, the foreign spouse is allowed a reasonable amount of time to dispose of the property and collect the proceeds or the property will pass to any Filipino heirs and or relatives.” I cannot however find any RA or PD or Department of Justice opinion which backs up this assertion. The Constitutional provision is clear that the foreigner-spouse, in the event of death of the Filipino spouse, has the legal right to own the property.

Note: What are the rights of a foreigner (and his successor-in-interest) who acquired real properties in the country as against his former Filipina girlfriend in whose sole name the properties were registered under the Torrens system? Please read the Supreme Court decision in Borromeo vs. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009.

The facts of the Muller case and the Supreme Court decision

1. Petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller (“Elena” for brevity) and respondent Helmut Muller (“Helmut” for brevity) were married in Hamburg, Germany on September 22, 1989. The couple resided in Germany at a house owned by respondent's parents but decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines in 1992. By this time, Helmut had inherited the house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal at the cost of P528,000.00 and the construction of a house amounting to P2,300,000.00. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of Elena under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 219438 of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila.

2. Due to incompatibilities and Helmut’s alleged womanizing, drinking, and maltreatment, the spouses eventually separated.

On September 26, 1994, Helmut filed a petition for separation of properties before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (“RTC” for brevity).

3. On August 12, 1996, the RTC rendered a decision which terminated the regime of absolute community of property between the couple. It also decreed the separation of properties between them and ordered the equal partition of personal properties located within the country, excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during the marriage.

With regards the Antipolo property, the court held that it was acquired using Helmut’s personal funds. However, it ruled that Helmut cannot recover his funds because the property was purchased in violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution. The RTC explained:

Pursuant to Article 92 of the Family Code, properties acquired by gratuitous title by either spouse during the marriage shall be excluded from the community property. The real property, therefore, inherited by Helmut in Germany is excluded from the absolute community of property of the spouses.

Necessarily, the proceeds of the sale of said real property as well as the personal properties purchased thereby, belong exclusively to Helmut. However, the part of that inheritance used by Helmut for acquiring the house and lot in this country cannot be recovered by him, its acquisition being a violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution. The law will leave the parties in the situation where they are in without prejudice to a voluntary partition by the parties of the said real property.

4. Helmut appealed to the Court of Appeals (“CA” for brevity). The CA overturned the RTC decision stating that Helmut merely asked for reimbursement for the purchase of the Antipolo property, and not acquisition or transfer of ownership to him (and that therefore there was no violation of the Constitution).

The CA further said that Elena’s ownership over the property was in trust for her husband Helmut. As regards the house, the CA ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits Helmut from acquiring it.

5. Elena then appealed to the Supreme Court (“SC” for brevity). The SC overturned the CA and thereby reinstated the decision of the RTC which was favorable to Elena.

The SC ruled that Helmut was aware of the Constitutional prohibition and expressly admitted his knowledge. He declared that he had the Antipolo property titled in Elena’s because of the said prohibition. His attempt at subsequently asserting or claiming a right on the said property cannot be sustained.

The SC also said that “the Court of Appeals erred in holding that an implied trust was created and resulted by operation of law in view of the marriage. Except for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, Helmut’s disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed. Besides, where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud. To hold otherwise would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition.”

In sum, the Supreme Court ruled that, as the RTC had originally decided, Elena cannot be ordered to reimburse Helmut his money used for the purchase of the lot and the construction of the house in Antipolo.

Property rights of foreigners living in with Filipino citizens

“What are the rights of a foreigner (and his successor-in-interest) who acquired real properties in the country as against his former Filipina girlfriend in whose sole name the properties were registered under the Torrens system?” This is the question answered by the Supreme Court in its decision in Borromeo vs. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009.
The facts of the Borromeo vs. Descallar case and the Supreme Court ruling

1. Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived in the Philippines in 1983 after he was assigned by his employer, Simmering-Graz Panker A.G., an Austrian company, to work at a project in Mindoro. In 1984, he transferred to Cebu and worked at the Naga II Project of the National Power Corporation. There, he met Antonietta Opalla-Descallar (“Descallar” for brevity), a separated mother of two boys who was working as a waitress at St. Moritz Hotel. Jambrich befriended Descallar and asked her to tutor him in English. In dire need of additional income to support her children, she agreed. The tutorials were held in Antonietta’s residence at a squatters’ area in Gorordo Avenue.

2. Jambrich and Descallar fell in love and decided to live together in a rented house in Hernan Cortes, Mandaue City. Later, they transferred to their own house and lots at Agro-Macro Subdivision, Cabancalan, Mandaue City. In the Contracts to Sell dated November 18, 1985 and March 10, 1986 covering the properties, Jambrich and Descallar were referred to as the buyers. A Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 16, 1987 was likewise issued in their favor.

3. However, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the Register of Deeds, registration was refused on the ground that Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain. Consequently, Jambrich’s name was erased from the document. But it could be noted that his signature remained on the left hand margin of page 1, beside Descallar’s signature as buyer on page 3, and at the bottom of page 4 which is the last page. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 24790, 24791 and 24792 over the properties were issued in Descallar’s name alone.

4. Jambrich also formally adopted respondent’s two sons.

5. However, the idyll lasted only until April 1991. By then, Descallar found a new boyfriend while Jambrich began to live with another woman in Danao City. Jambrich supported Descallar’s sons for only two months after the break up.

6. Jambrich met petitioner Camilo F. Borromeo (“Borromeo” for brevity) sometime in 1986. Borromeo was engaged in the real estate business. He also built and repaired speedboats as a hobby. In 1989, Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from Borromeo, for which he became indebted to the latter for about Php 150,000.00. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to Borromeo for Php 250,000, as evidenced by a “Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment.”

7. On July 26, 1991, when Borromeo sought to register the deed of assignment, he discovered that titles to the three lots have been transferred in the name of Descallar, and that the subject property has already been mortgaged.

8. On August 2, 1991, Borromeo filed a complaint against Descallar for recovery of real property before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City. He alleged:

(a) the Contracts to Sell dated November 18, 1985 and March 10, 1986 and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 16, 1987 over the properties which identified both Jambrich and Descallar as buyers do not reflect the true agreement of the parties since Descallar did not pay a single centavo of the purchase price and was not in fact a buyer;

(b) that it was Jambrich alone who paid for the properties using his exclusive funds;

(c) that Jambrich was the real and absolute owner of the properties; and,

(d) that he acquired absolute ownership by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment dated July 11, 1991 which Jambrich executed in his favor.

9. In her Answer, Descallar denied the allegation that she did not pay a single centavo of the purchase price. On the contrary, she claimed that she “solely and exclusively used her own personal funds to defray and pay for the purchase price of the subject lots in question,” and that Jambrich, being an alien, was prohibited to acquire or own real property in the Philippines.

10. At the trial, Descallar presented evidence showing her alleged financial capacity to buy the disputed property with money from a supposed copra business. Borromeo, in turn, presented Jambrich as his witness and documentary evidence showing the substantial salaries which Jambrich received while still employed by the Austrian company, Simmering-Graz Panker A.G.

11. The Mandaue City RTC ruled in favor of Borromeo. The court concluded that:

It is highly improbable and impossible that Descallar could acquire the properties under litigation or could contribute any amount for their acquisition which according to her is worth more than Php 700,000.00 when while she was working as [a] waitress at St. Moritz Hotel earning Php 1,000.00 a month as salary and tips of more or less Php 2,000.00 she could not even provide [for] the daily needs of her family so much so that it is safe to conclude that she was really in financial distress when she met and accepted the offer of Jambrich to come and live with him because that was a big financial opportunity for her and her children who were already abandoned by her husband.

The trial court, citing the Supreme Court decision in United Church Board for World Ministries v. Sebastian ruled in favor of Borromeo. That decision reiterated the consistent ruling that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. The trial stated in its ruling:

While the acquisition and the purchase of Wilhelm Jambrich of the properties under litigation were void ab initio since they were contrary to the Constitution of the Philippines, he being a foreigner, yet, the acquisition of these properties by plaintiff who is a Filipino citizen from him, has cured the flaw in the original transaction and the title of the transferee is valid.

The Mandaue City RTC thus rendered judgment in favor of Borromeo by:

(a) declaring that Borromeo was the owner of the properties in dispute;

(b) declaring as null and void the titles registered in Descallar’s name;

(c) ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the titles issued in Descallar’s name and to issue new titles in Borromeo’s name.

12. Descallar appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated April 10, 2002, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court. In ruling for the respondent, the Court of Appeals held:

We disagree with the lower court’s conclusion. The circumstances involved in the case cited by the lower court and similar cases decided on by the Supreme Court which upheld the validity of the title of the subsequent Filipino purchasers are absent in the case at bar. It should be noted that in said cases, the title to the subject property has been issued in the name of the alien transferee (Godinez et al., vs. Fong Pak Luen et al., 120 SCRA 223 citing Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 79 Phils. 461; United Church Board for World Ministries vs. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446, citing the case of Sarsosa Vda. De Barsobia vs. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547; Tejido vs. Zamacoma, 138 SCRA 78). In the case at bar, the title of the subject property is not in the name of Jambrich but in the name of defendant-appellant. Thus, Jambrich could not have transferred a property he has no title thereto.

13. When his motion for reconsideration was denied, Borromeo filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the Mandaue City RTC. The Supreme Court ruled:

(a) Jambrich was the source of fund used to purchase the three parcels of land, and to construct the house thereon. He therefore has all authority to transfer all his rights, interests and participation over the subject properties to petitioner by virtue of the Deed of Assignment he executed on July 11, 1991 in Borromeo’s favor.

(b) The rule that co-ownership applies to a man and a woman living exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, but are otherwise capacitated to marry each other, does not apply to Jambrich and Descallar. She was still legally married to another when she and Jambrich lived together. In such an adulterous relationship, no co-ownership exists between the parties. It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply.

(c) Since the true buyer of the disputed house and lots was Jambrich (an Austrian), what now is the effect of registration of the properties in his name?

[1] It is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is only a means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large. Certificates of title are not a source of right. The mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of the property. Thus, the mere fact that Descallar has the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the owner. The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply to respondent. A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet, and that it is perfect, absolute and indefeasible. However, there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as when the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject properties for a valuable consideration. This is the situation in the instant case. Descallar did not contribute a single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She had no income of her own at that time, nor did she have any savings. She and her two sons were then fully supported by Jambrich.

[2] The transfer of land from Agro-Macro Development Corporation to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would have been declared invalid if challenged, had not Jambrich conveyed the properties to Borromeo who is a Filipino citizen.

[3] The rationale behind the Court’s ruling in United Church Board for World Ministries, as reiterated in subsequent cases, is this – since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation’s land for future generations of Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BROKER AND AN AGENT

In Tan vs. Gullas (441 Phil. 622 (2002)), the Supreme Court had occasion to define a broker and distinguish it from an agent, thus:

(One) who is engaged, for others, on a commission, negotiating contracts relative to property with the custody of which he has no concern; the negotiator between the other parties, never acting in his own name but in the name of those who employed him. (A) broker is one whose occupation is to bring the parties together, in matter of trade, commerce or navigation.

An agent receives a commission upon a successful conclusion of a sale. On the other hand, a broker earns his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made.

AMENDMENT OF MORTGAGE

As laid down in LRC Consulta No. 160, to wit:

" Where real estate mortgage is amended and the amendment involves an increase in the mortgage loan, the fees to be collected shall be based on the amount of the increase only, provided that no new security is given to guarantee the agregated loan and that the period of the original mortgage has not been extended.

If therefore the new security is given as an addition or in substitution for the part of the original that has been released, and that there is no stipulation that the same will answer only for a certain definite portion of the Mortgage Loan, registration should be collected on the basis of the aggregate amount of the consideration."

DAR CLEARANCE

In accordance with Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995, as amended by Administrative Order No. 6, Series 0f 1996 of the Department of Agrarian Reform, lands awarded under P.D. 27 may be subsequently trnasferrred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance.This is true nothwithstanding the injunction appearing on the face of the said Emancipation Patent that it is "subject to the condition that it shall not be transferred except by hereditary succession." Administrative Order No. 8 is now being implemented by this Authority through LRA Circular No. 96-03 dated 2 February 1996. (LRA Consulta No. 2738)

CONSULTA

Sec. 117 of P.D. 1529 provides:

Sec. 117. Procedure. - When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with  the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.

Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration upon payment of a consulta fee in such amount as shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Registration.

The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending consulta on the certificate of title which shall be cancelled motu propio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.

The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all Register of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the Commissioner relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434.

Deed of Revocation of Deed of Donation

Thus and considering that the Deed of Donation was not registered nor annotated on the titles of Isaias Udal, registration of the Deed of Revocation of Donation executed by the latter and his heirs cannot be given due course for the simple reason that th edonation was not registered and therefore there is nothing to be revoked. To do otherwise, would create a vacuum or missing link in the chain of transactions involving the property in question. Moreover, the donor cannot unilaterally revoke the donation after it was perfected. (Parks vs. Province of Tarlac, 49 Phil. 142)

Registration and annotation

"At this stage where the act of recording has been completed and registration is an accomplished fact, this Administration can no longer direct the Register of Deeds to cancel the annotation from the certificate of title. The recording of the memorandum being fait accompli its cancellation may be effected only upon order of the court or by means of a voluntary instrument executed by the one who caused the registration. " (Consulta No. 1528)( LRA Consulta No. 2455 dated August 9, 2002)

Forged and Illegally Issued Title

Any person who is a transferee of a certificate of title emanating from a forged or illegally issued title cannot be placed in a better position than the legally  registered owner of a certificate of title. As decided by the Supreme Court in C.N. Hodges vs. Dy Buncio & Co., Inc.: " A person who bought land registered under the Torrens System from one who procured title thereto by means of fraud, cannot invoke indefeasibility of his title against the registered owner who did not perform any act which could have brought about the issuance of another certificate upon which a purchaser in good faith and for value could rely." (6 SCRA 289) (LRA Consulta NO. 2420 dated April 25, 2001)

A Void Title May Become the Root of a Valid Title in the Hnads of An Innocent Holder for Value

The Supreme Court in the case of Fule vs. De Legare, 7 SCRA 351, (1963) held:

" We have indeed ruled that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title (Director of Lands vs. Addison, 49 Phil. 19). However, we have also laid down the doctrine that there are instances when such fraudulent document may become the root of valid title. One such instance is where the certificate of title was laready transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger,and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser.For then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate (Inquimbos vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-13953, July 28, 1960).

Whether or not an action for declaration of nullity of marriage may be a valid case for the notation of a Notice of Lis Pendens

The answer is in the affirmative. In a long line of consultas, the LRA has ruled, to wit:

" Again, it was advanced that the Notice of Lis Pendens could not be given due course on account of the fact that the action subject thereof is for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage which does not fall under the provisions of Section 76 of PD 1529. Consulta No. 1737 settles this, and we quote its penultimate paragraph, Thus:

"Section 76 of PD 1529 authorizes among others, the registration of Notice of Lis Pendens is proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon and this may very well include a petition for legal separation. Consequently, it is our view that as this issue of title, or ownership of the conjugal partnership, properties are directly involved in a proceeding for legal separation, the remedy of lis pendens is available to the parties thereto."

In a separate ruling, the LRA held that:

"An action for annulment of marriage may be the subject of lis pendens because if the petition is granted by the court the conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated and the properties divided between the spouses. Hence, the properties are directly affected in the proceeedings." (Consulta No. 2201)

Sale With Pacto De Retro

A sale with pacto de retro transfers the legal title to the vendee (Aldente vs. Amandoron, 46 Phil 488). Hence, it is subject to the payment of capital gains tax pursuant to Section 21 (e) of the Tax Code. If the period to repurchase expires, the ownership of the property  becomes consolidated by operation of law in the vendee, and the vendor loses all his rights in the property sold (Ortiz vs. Ortiz, 26 Phil. 280; De Bayguen vs. Vda. De Elpa, 143 SCRA 412). The consolidation of ownershio, however, shall not be recorded/ registered by the Register of Deeds without a judicial order after the vendor has been duly heard (Art. 1697, Civil Code of the Philippines). (LRA Consulta No. 2836 dated April 14, 2000)

Certificate of Sale and Real Estate Mortgage

It is a well-established rule that before a Certificate of Sale may be admitted for registration, the mortgage that was foreclosed must first be registered. (LRA Consulta No. 3125)

In Consulta No. 1308, this Authority ruled:

" The Sheriff's Certificate of Sale is likewise not registrable it appearing that the same refers to a mortgage which has not yet been registered. This Commission (now Land Registration Authority) believes that to be registrable, the mortgage that was foreclosed must be registered. The legality of the auction sale conducted by the sheriff has nothing to do with the registrability of the Certificate of Sale. Legality should not be confused with registrability. There are instruments which are perfectly legal and yet, for reasons independent of their legality, unregistrable."

" x x x while a mortgage creates a real right and directly immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor maybe, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted (Article 2126, Civil Code), for registration purposes, however, it is necessary that the mortgage lien be annotated on the certificate of title where the sheriff's certificate of sale is sought to be recorded to serve as basis for the registration of said certifcate of sale ." (Consulta No. 1828) (Cited in LRA Consulta No. 2958 dated February 7, 2000)

Notice of Lis Pendens

This Authority has occasion to rule in Consulta No. 2108 that:

" x x xNotice of Lis Pendens may only be annotated on existing or uncancelled certificate of title which are registered in the names of those who are impleaded in the pending case. If it is desired to have the Notice annotated, it must appear that the present registered owners are impleaded in the pending case. (LRC Consulta No. 1140) (see also LRC Consulta Nos. 464, 562, 643, 713, 899, 764, 1793)

Notice of Levy

It was held in Cosmopolitan Bank and Trust Corp. vs. CA, 193SCRA 158 ,that " the well-settled doctrine is that proper levy is indispensable to a valid sale on execution. A sale unless preceded by a levy is void (46 Phil 258). Therefore, since there was no sufficient levy of the execution in question the private respondent did not take any title to the properties sold thereunder. Apparently, Reynaldo Angsuco, the highest bidder in the auction sale, to whom the certificate of sale was issued did not take any title to the properties sold thereof. He cannot, therefore, register the right of ownership over the subject property which he did not acquire from the start.

Furthermore, this Authority ruled in Consulta No.946, that: "Thus, aside from the fact that Act 3344 and Act 496 are two entirely  different systems  of registration, the registration under the former of the notice of levy, being without force and effect cannot be the basis for the registration of the Sheriff Certificate of Sale. x x x levy on real property not duly recorded in the registry is not valid and is not an encumbrance, then the property can not be sold at public auction to enforce an encumbrance" (LRC Consulta No. 171, Register of Deeds of Quezon City) (Consulta No. 3097 dated January 10, 2001)

Revived Judgment

Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:

" Execution by motion or by independent action. A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations." (Cited in LRA Consulta No. 3366 dated November 22, 2002)

Dispensing the surrender of the owner's duplicate copy of title

Section 80 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, provides: "Every court rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting registered land shall, upon petition of said  plaintiff, order any parties before it to execute for registration any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to the judgment, and shall require the registered owner to deliver his duplicate certificate to plaintiff or to the Register of Deeds to be cancelled or to have a memorandum annotated upon it."

While Section 80 requires that the herein registered owner first surrender her duplicate certificates of title for cancellation, in Toledo Banaga vs Court of Appeals in G.R. No. 127941 (302 SCRA 331) the Supreme Court ruled that  " as part of the execution process, it is ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to comply with the decison of the court to issue a title and register a property in the name of a certain person when the decision had attained finality... the formality that the registered owner first surrenders her duplicate certificate of title for cancellation per Section 80 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 bears no merit x x x If execution cannot be held just because the losing party will not surrender her titles, the entire proceeding in the courts, not to say the efforts,  expenses and time of the parties, would be rendered nugatory." (LRA Consulta No. 3358 dated June 11, 2002)

Cancellation of Certificate of Title

In a long line of consultas, it has been settled that LRA has no authority to order the cancellation of any duly issued certificate of title. A certificate of title, once issued under the Torrens system, becomes a conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name appears on the face of title thereof. It is only a court of competent jurisdiction that can declare a certificate of title null and void, and it is only the court which can order the cancellation thereof, in the proper proceedings brought before it for such purpose.(LRA Consulta No. 3344 dated June 10, 2002 )

Original Certificate of Title To be issued by the Register of Deeds

Whenever public land is by the Government, alienated, granted, or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent orconveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be registered like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee. x x x" (Sec. 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1529) (LRA Consulta No. 3297)

Reconstitution of a cancelled title

In Consulta No. 1618 and 2815 the LRA ruled that "while Court Orders are worthy of respect and deserving of compliance by miniterial officers, the orders should be understood in conformity with all the statutes and legal principles pertinent thereto. Thus, if the Register of Deeds finds that it is impossible to comply with the directive of the Court because the title to be cnacelled has already been cancelled, then said official has no alternative but to deny registration: x x x "

It is the duty of the Registrar of Deeds upon receipt of a certified copy of the order of reconstitution from the Clerk of Court to ascertain from his records and from the papers presented to him if the certificate of title to be reconstituted was in force at the time of its loss or destruction. If he finds that the same had already been cancelled before it was lost or destroyed, he shall report the matter to the court, which ordered the reconstitution. (Sec. 8, GLRO Circular No. 17) ( LRA Consulta No. 3279)

Registration under wrong system

In Consulta No. 2887, citing Consulta No. 1302, this Authority held that:

" There are two systems of registration prevailing in our jurisdiction. One is the Torrens System of registration for registered land under Presidential Decree No. 1529, and the other is the system of registration for unregistered land under Act No. 3344 (now Sec. 113 of P.D. 1529). These systems of registration are separate and distinct from each other in scope and subject matter. Thus, registration under P.D. 1529 refers to the titled lands, while registration under Act No. 3344 concerns unregistered lands. Documents involving registered lands should be recorded only under P.D. 1529. The registration therefore of an instrument under the wrong system of registration produces no legal effect."

Cancelled certificates of title

It is an established rule that registration cannot be accomplished on a cancelled title (Consulta Nos. 460, 465, 496, 643, 713, 1143 and 744). It has been ruled that where the certificate of title subject of an instrument sought to be registered has already been cancelled and replaced by new ones, recording of the instrument can no longer be accomplished because registration to be effective should be made on the subsisting certificate of title.(LRA Consulta No. 3286 dated October 18, 2002).

It has been consistently ruled  by this Authority that liens or memoranda of whatever nature affecting registered land may only be annotated on existing or uncancelled titles for the reason that a cancelled title may be considered ad a 'dead title" or which has been rendered nugatory with no force and effect whatsoever, by virtue of its cancellation. (LRC Consulta No. 1162)

Original copies of documents

It is a basic requirement in registration that the original copy of the document  sought to be annotated  on the title, and other pertinent papers relative thereto, must be presented and submitted to the Register of Deeds.If the original copy is lost, destroyed or otherwise cannot be presented , a copy thereof certified by its official custodian and accompanied by an affidavit stating the reason why the original cannot be produced, may be accepted for entry and registration. (LRA Consulta No. 3296 dated November 20, 2002)

Notice of Lis Pendens on a Certificate of Title in the name of the Corporation not in the name of decedent

In LRC Consulta No. 32, this Authority held that "while it is true that the function of the Register of Deeds is purely ministerial, he is nevertheless allowed to examine the documents presented whether or not from its face, it appears that there are defects in the fromal requisites or there are some legal deficiencies, he cna properly deny its registration."

In the consulta at bar, the documents presented to the respondent yields from its face, a legal deficiency. The property on which the subject Notice of Lis Pendens is sought to be registered does not belong to the decedent, but to the corporation where deceased Francisco Angeles was a stockholder. It is a basic priciple in law that ownership of some shares of stock in a corporation does not entitle a shareholder to claim ownership over the capital assets of the corporation. In LRC Consulta No.44, this Authority held that " a share of stock only typifies an aliquot part of the corporation's property, or the right to share in the proceeds to that extent when distributed according to law and equity, but the holder is not the owner of any part of the capital assets of the corporation. Nor is he entitled to the possession of any definite portion of its property."

(LRA Consulta No. 3209 dated November 19, 2002, Aleli "corazon" Angeles-Maglaya vs. The Registrar of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan)

Register of Deeds, Improper Party to File Petition for Reconstitution (LRA Circular No. 16 dated March 26, 1990

By virtue of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in "Register of Deeds of Malabon, Metro Manila, vs. Hon. Regional Trial Court, Malabon, Metro Manila, Br. 170", G.R. No. 88623, promulgated on February 5, 1990, the Register of Deeds is not the proper party to file petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed original copies of certificates of title , as follows:

"Apart from the defective publication of the petition, another reason for its dismissal is that the REgister of Deeds for Malabon is not the proper party to file the petition for reconstitution.Sec. 6 of Rep. Act No. 26, which allowed the Register of Deeds to motu propio reconstitute a lost or destroyed certificate, was expressly repealed or declared to be 'inoperative' by Sec. 6 of Rep. Act No. 6732, approved on July 17, 1989. A petition for reconstitution may now be filed only by 'the registered owner, his assigns, or any person who has an interest in the property' (Sec. 12, Rep. Act No. 26). In other respects, the special procedure provided in Rep. Act No. 26 remains unchanged and thereefore still applies." (Zuniga vs. Vicencio, 153 SCRA 720)

The LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY...Its MISSION , VISION and MANDATE

MISSION:

The Land Registration Authority is mandated to issue decrees of registration and certificates of titles and register documents, patents and other land transactions for the benefit of landowners, Agrarian Reform-beneficiaries and the registering public in general; to provide a secure, stable and trustworthy record of land ownership and recorded interests therein so as to promote social and economic well-being and contribute to national development.
To achieve this mission, the LRA is committed to effectively implement the laws and regulations relative to the registration of land titles and deeds; to maintain and foster greater public trust and confidence in the Torrens title through honest, prompt and efficient service to preserve and maintain the integrity of land records; to provide vital, accurate and timely land-related development as well as to provide convenient working conditions and adequate incentives to all LRA personnel.

VISION:

A LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY - (LRA) that is:

• An independent corporate body exercising quasi-judicial functions with automated systems and modern facilities;
• An effectively managed organization responsive to the needs of its client and its personnel as well.
• An entity conscious of its role to promote and to attain the full trust and confidence of the public in the Torrens title.

MANDATE:

The LRA exists for the sole purpose of implementing and protecting the Torrens system of land titling and registration. It is the central repository of all land records involving registered or titled lands.
It issues decrees of registration pursuant to final judgment of the courts in land registration proceedings and causes the issuance by a registrar of deeds the corresponding certificate of title;

It is tasked to issue all subsequent or transfer certificates of title which may either be issued judicially or administratively; It keeps the title history or records of transaction involving titled or registered lands; It exercises control over the disposition or alienation of registered lands in accordance with existing government rules and regulations; It provides legal and technical assistance to the courts on land registration cases; It extends assistance to other agencies of the government in the implementation cases; It extends assistance to other agencies of the government in the implementation of the agrarian program; Its a revenue-collecting agency of the government.

 

http://www.lra.gov.ph/

The LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ...Its History

Sir Robert Torrens originated the system of land registration known today all over the world as the Torrens System. As the Commissioner of Customs in South Australia, Torrens was inspired by the facility with which ships or undivided share therein were negotiated and transferred in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Acts. Becoming a register of deeds, he advised a scheme of registration of title that improved on the old system. When he became a member of South Australia's First Colonial Ministry, he introduced in the parliament a bill providing for the adoption of his scheme of land registration. The measure was passed and came to be known as "Torrens System". On November 6, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act 496, known as Land Registration Law. This provided for the creation of the Court of Land Registration (CLR), the office of the Registers of Deeds and of the institution in this country of the Torrens System of registration whereby real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed and recorded in the archives of the government. However, the system actually took effect on February 1, 1903. Five judges were appointed by the Governor-General with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission. One judge was designated Judge of Court; the rest were assigned Associate Judges. Other members of the court were a clerk and assistant clerk, both appointed by the Attorney General with the approval of the Secretary of Finance and Justice. Along with the court were established the Registries of Deeds.

Later, the Court of Land Registration, because of Act No. 2374, was given over the Court of First Instance and a new office was established - the General Land Registration Office. On June 17, 1954, Republic Act No. 1151 abolished the GLRO and created in its stead the Land Registration Commissions (LRC). The Commissioner of Land Registration took over the powers and functions of the GLRO, including those of the judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The LRC worked under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, and was in direct control of the Registers of Deeds (RDs) as well as the Clerks of Court of First Instance in land registration cases. It was then that registry of deeds was established in every city and every province and a branch registry was put up wherever else possible at the time. On February 9, 1981, the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No.649 reorganizing the LRC into the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA).This agency operated under the administrative auspices of the then Ministry of Justice, and extended effective assistance to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank of the Philippines, and other agencies in line with the Land Reform Program. In a Presidential Memorandum Circular of September 30, 1988, the NLTDRA was changed into the Land Registration Authority. This was in line Executive Order No. 292 dated July 25, 1987, instituting the Administrative Code of 1987, which took effect on November 23, 1989.The Authority has grown through the years. It now has 2500 employees nationwide. And it has consistently increased its revenues though its registries of deeds for the past five years. Many new methods and techniques have been developed by the administration in the defense of the landowner. Time has not stymied the purpose of the agency, but has honored its sense of duty to that of a fine new razor. In truth the authority is more active than ever, willing and able to be defend the integrity of the Torrens system in the Philippines for the benefit of the landowner...the Filipino!!!

 

Certiorari

A petition for certiorari is not an action directly affecting title to or right of possession of real property or to quiet title thereto, but it is an action primarily directed against the respondent court. Thus, this Authority ruled in Consulta No. 924 that:

"An action directed specifically against a tribunal, corporation, board or person who is charged with unlawful neglect in the performance of an act enjoined by law as a duty resulting from an office, is by very nature a personal and not the real action required by the Rules of Court and Act 496 (now Sec. 76, PD 1529) for purposes of lis pendens." (LRA Consulta No.2309 dated January 27, 2000)

Owner must be impleaded in the complaint

" On the objection that the registered owner of the land sought to be affected by the notice of lis pendens is not impleaded in the pending case, the same finds support not only in the LRC Circular No. 252 dated July 8, 1974 , which provides  that this lis pendens is not registrable in the event that the owner is not impleaded in the action for the simple reason that the property sought to be affected does not belong to the defendant in the civil case mentioned. This is in accordance with the long line of consultas decided by this Commission, where it has been held that a notice of lis pendens which seeks to affect property not belonging to either party to lititgation cannot be registered." (LRA Consulta No. 2653 dated March 20, 2000)

Foreigners as adverse claimants

x x x x being a foreigner is not allowed to own lands in the Philippines. Consequently, he could not have any interest in the property covered by TCT No. _____. To allow registration of the adverse claim will effect be a recognition of his being part owner of the land, situation violative of the Constitution. (LRA Consulta No. 2835)

Cancellation of Adverse Claim

This Authority has abandoned the earlier practice of allowing the cancellation of adverse claim through a sworn  petition by the party interest (a registered owner) addressed to the Register of Deeds. The registered owner must instead address his petition for cancellation of the adverse claim to the proper court. This is in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of "Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita Sajonas, petitoners, versus, the Court of Appeals, Domingo A. Pilares, Sheriff Garcia of Quezon City and the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Respondents," GR No. 102377 promulgated on July 5, 1996, which declared that an adverse claim annotated on the title can only be cancelled by order of the court . (LRA Consulta No. 2805 and 2963)

Estafa

A criminal case for estafa is a personal action directed against a person of the defendant and does not in any way involve the recovery of possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon a title thereof, or partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting land or the use  or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, which may be the basis of lis pendens as contemplated  in Section 76 of P.D. 1529.

Hereditary share as an adverse claim

LRC Circular No. 306, date April 27, 1977 embodies the guidelines in the registration of an adverse claim. Paragraph 8 thereof reads:

8. Hereditary share not a basis of adverse claim. It has been settled by this Commission in a string of consultas that the rights of an heir cannot be the subject of an adverse claim.The claim of heirs based solely on their rights of succession, cannot be the basis of an adverse claim on the property registered in the name of the person from whom they claim to inherit since as such, their claim is certainly not adverse to her. On the contrary, it should be in the interest of the heirs to uphold the title of the one they seek to inherit from in order to have a valid title to succeed to and step into the shoes of their predecessor-in-interest. Such claim based on successional rights, therefore, is not within the contemplation of Sec. 110 of Act 496." (LRA Consulta No. 2849)

Money Claim as an adverse claim. . .

A mere money claim may not be registered as an adverse claim on a Torrens certificate of title and a judge who orders the annotation on the certificate of title of such money claim as an adverse claim acts without any authority in law and commits a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction that calls for the issuance of the correcting writ of certiorari.

Adverse Claim: Formal requisites. . .

The following are the formal requisites of an adverse claim: (Sec. 70 of P.D. 1529)
1. The adverse claimant must state the following in writing:
a. his alleged right or interest;
b. how and under whom such alleged right or interest is acquired;
c. the description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed
2. The statement must be signed and sworn to before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oath;
3. The claimant should state his residence or the place to which all notices may be served upon him. (Lozano vs. Ballesteros, 1991, 1995 SCRA 681, 688-689)

Functions of the Register of Deeds

The Register of Deeds is utterly incompetent to make an appraisal of proofs outside of the documents sought to be registered. He can only determine the registrability of an instrument presented for registration by what appears on its face.

It is precisely his duty to see to it that a document presented  for registration is regular and in due form. (Gonzales vs. Basa, Jr., 73 Phil 704)

Where the document sought to be registered is sufficient in law and drawn in accordance with the existing requirements, it becomes incumbent with the Register of Deeds to perform his ministerial duty without unnecessary delay. The Register of Deed can only be restrained to act by proper injunction from the court. (LRC Consulta No. 298)

There is no existing law nor rule which imposes upon the Register of Deeds the duty to give notice to all parties concerned that a registered land owner is causing to effect transfer of his rights therein in favor of another. (LRC Consulta No. 81, dated May 9, 1956) (LRC Consulta No. 90)

Minors as parties to an instrument of conveyance

The father, or in his absence the mother, is automatically the legal administrator of the property of the minor child. But the father or the mother, as the case may be, cannot sell said property (even is the value be less than P2,000.00), without the approval of a court of competent jurisdiction. (LRC Consulta Nos. 105, 158, 189)

The Register of Deeds should not register any instrument by which  the property of a child under parental authority is sold, alienated, assigned, encumbered or otherwise disposed of by the administrator of the child’s property irrespective of the value thereof, unless such transaction is duly authorized by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Nor should the Register of Deeds register a deed of sale in favor of a minor, who is represented by his father, or mother, as legal administrator, or by a a judicial guardian, unless the investment so made of the ward’s money has been duly approved by the proper Cout, (LRC Consulta No 189)

Documents executed abroad...

Documents executed  in a foreign country cannot be registered unless properly authenticated.In this jurisdiction, documents acknowledged before, and authenticated by , a notary public in a foreign country shall be considered authentic if further authenticated by an ambassador, secretary of legation, charge d'affairs, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the Philippines in that place. It is the certificate of the proper Philippine officer that gives the stamp of authenticity and in its absence, the document is not considered authentic and is not registrable in the Philippines. (LRC Consulta No.1)

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF A DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

1. Deed of Absolute Sale
2. Certificate Authorizing Registration issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue
3. Real Property Tax Clearance issued by the Treasurer's Office
4. Latest Tax Declaration issued by the Assessor's Office
5.Transfer Tax Receipt from the Treasurer's Office
6. Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title

Additional Requirements:

1. Board Resolution or Corporate Secretary's Certificate - if the vendor and/ or the vendee is a corporation

2. Articles of Incorporation (if vendee is a corporation)

3. Affidavit pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 if transferee/ vendee is a former Filipino citizen

4. DAR Clearance if subject land is an agricultural land

5. Affidavit - if the original copy of the document cannot be produced or submitted for registration (LRA Consulta No. 3296).

When are deeds considered registered under P.D. 1529?

From the moment of payment of the filing fee, the entry and notation of deeds relating to registered land in the entry book, the same are considered registered (Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil. 196 (1955); Yuasa, et. al. vs. Baltazar, et. al., 56 O.G. p. 480, Jan. 1959, CA).

The moment a document has been entered in the day book and all other requisites necessary for registration have been complied with, there is sufficient registration in law to operate as a conveyance of the property (Levin vs. Bass, et. al., 91 Phil 420 (1952); Domingo, et. al. vs. Par, et. al., 54 O.G. p. 7060, October 27, 1958,CA).

Primary Entry Book

It was held by the Supreme Court in Villasor vs. Camon, et. al., 89 Phil. 404 (1951) that for the registration of voluntary instruments it is necessary not only to register the deed, instrument of assignment, mortgage, or lease in the entry book of the Registrar of Deeds, but a memorandum thereof shall also be made by the Registrar of Deeds on the owner's duplicate certificate and its original.

It should also be noted that entry in the day book is but a preliminary step in the registration,the actual annotation of the memorandum or the issuance of a new certificate of title being the final step to accomplish registration.

Registration

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 under this Decree, the regsitration shall be made in the office of the Registrar of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies ( Sec. 51, 2nd par., P.D. 1529)

The act of registration creates constructive notice to the whole world of the fact of such conveyance. (Quilisadio vs. Court of Appeals, 1990, 182 SCRA 401 citing Heirs of Maria Marasigan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 1987, 152 SCRA 253).

Where a party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of the prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him. The Torrens systme cannot be used as a shield for the commission of a fraud (Gustilo vs. Maravilla, 48 Phil 442).

The law on registration does not require  that only valid instruments shall be registered. Registration must first be allowed and the validity or effect be litigated afterwards. The purpose of registration is merely to give notice (Gurbax Singh, Pablo & Co., et al. vs. Reyes et. al., 92 Phil 177 (1952)).

The rule is well-established that registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole world. The record is constructive notice of its contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein. All persons are charged with knowledge of what it contains (People vs. Reyes, 1989, 175 SCRA 597, citing Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby 1915, 31 Phil 590, Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-48971 and 49011, January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 380.)

Registration means any entry made in the books of the registry including the cancellation, annotation and even the marginal notes. In its strict sense, it is the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and permanently the rights of ownership and other real rights (page 1, Register of Deeds' Manual of Registration). However, not all claims and alleged rights of ownership are registrable. Only those which prove to be supported by factual documents and based on existing rights, interest and claims are registrable. (LRA Consulta No. 3119)

Reconstitution

Reconstitution is the restoration of the instrument or title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition (Anciano vs. Caballes, 93 Phil 876).

For an order of reconstitution to issue, the following elements must be present:
1. That the certificate of title has been lost or destroyed
2. That the petititoner is the registered owner or has an interest therein
3. That the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed ( Chinest Nationalist Party vs. Bermundo, CA-44100-R, December 11, 1972).

Reconstitution of the original copies of instruments or titles may be done administratively or through the courts. Administrative reconstitution used to be governed by Republic Act No. 26 approved on September 25, 1926. However, due to anomalies resulting from this manner of reconstitution, the procedure was abrogated by Section 110 of PD 1529. At present, administrative reconstitution is governed by Republic Act No. 6732 as approved on July 20, 1989. Judicial reconstitution, is governed by P.D. 1529 which took effect on its approval on June 11, 1978.

NOTE: Reconstitution of title refers to original certificates of title on file with the Registry of Deeds not to the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title.

Lost Duplicate (Owner's Copy) Certificate of Title

Section 109 of P.D. 1529 provides that in case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered.

Probative Value of a Torrens Title

A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein ( Ching vs. Court of Appeals, 1990, 181 SCRA 9, 18; Sec. 49, Act 496). A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any "information possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title.

The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein (Ybanez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 1991, 194 SCRA 743)

KInds of Certificates of Title

1. ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - The title issued for the first time after the land has been adjudicated and decreed inthe name of its owner in original or initial registration proceedings by the Registrar of Deeds where the land lies pursuant to the decree of registration issued by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority.
2. TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - The title issued after the cancellation of the original certificate of title when the land is transferred by the registered owner by reason of sale or otherwise.

Steps in Chronological Order for the Registration of Title to Land Under Act 496

1. Survey of the land by the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Services) or a duly licensed surveyor;
2. Preparation and filing of the application for registration by the applicant;
3. Setting of the date of the hearing of the application by the court;
4. Trnasmittal of the duplicate of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all documents attahced thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Authority;
5. Publication of notice of the filing of the application and date and place of the hearing once in newspaper of general circulation and once inthe Official Gazette;
6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants, and those hnown to have interest in the property by the Sheriff;
7.Filing of the answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not;
8. Hearing of the cause by the court and the presentation of evidence;
9. Promulgation of the judgment by the court;
10. Issuance of an order by the court declaring the judgment final and instructing the Land Registration Authority to issue the decree of registration in accordance with Sec. 39 of P.D. 1529
11. Entry of Decree of registration in the Land Registration Authority;
12. Sending copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Registrar of Deeds by the Land Registration Authority;
13. Transription of the decree of registrationin the registration book and the issuance of the owner's duplicate certificate of the original certificate of title to the applicant by the Registrar of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.

Who May Apply for REgistration under Act 496 (now P.D. 1529)

Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the following persons may file in the proper Regional Trial Court an application  for the registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
1. Those who by themselves or thru their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under bonafide claimof ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier;
2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws;
3. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right lands of accession or accretion under the existing laws;
4. Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided by law.

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

A certificate of title is a mere evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the land itself as the concept of title is conceived under our Civil Law; " the certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration " (Sec. 39, P.D. 1529)

LAND REGISTRATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

There are presently only two (2) systems of registration of real property or rights therein: (1) the Torrens System (2) the system of recording of unregistered  real estate.

The Torrens System was designed to establish a system of registration by which title recorded become absolute , indefeasible and imprescriptible and Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, was passed and took effect on February 1, 1903.

Presidential Decree No. 1529, The Property Registration Decree was issued to cope with the growing need of updating the Land Registration Act, to codify the various other laws relative to registration of real property and real rights, and to further strengthen the Torrens system.

In order to provide for the registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands, the Administrative Code  in Section 194 established a system of regisration under which all documents, affecting lands not registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law nor under the Torrens System, be recorded in the land records of the province or city where the land lies. This sectionof the Administrative Code was subsequently amended by Act No. 2837 and later on December 8, 1926, Act No. 3344 was passed revising to a considerable extent the provisions of the Administrative Code.

The Meaning of Title

The word title carries a different meaning under different circumstances, But in legal terms, generally it is defined as the lawful cause or ground of possessing that which is ours.It is that which is the foundation of ownership of property, real or personal (Hunt vs. Easton, 21 N.W. 429,431). Title, may also be briefly defined as that which constitutes a just cause of exclusive possession, or which is the foundation of ownership of property.