Heirs of Pedro Lopez et. al. v Honesto C. de Castro, et. al. GR No.

upheld the validity of their title and its indefeasibility against collateral
112905, February 3, 2000 attack from the petitioners.

“two applications of a parcel of land” Granting that the petitioners did not have actual knowledge about the
respondent’s application to the land, they waited for 7 more years after
Facts: The petitioners filed an application for registration of parcel of land knowing that the property was already registered in the name of the
located in Tagaytay City with the CFI in Cavite. respondents to demand for the execution of judgment and cancellation of
The Municipality of Silang, Cavite files an opposition alleging that the land the respondent’s title. Therefore the SC finds them guilty of latches.
is its patrimonial property. The petitioners claim that the land is a part of Petitioner’s petition was denied.
the whole tract of land as their inheritance sought to be registered
in Cavite but was excluded from their application upon recommendation of Note:
the chief surveyor of the Land Reg. Office because the land is located in
the Province of Laguna. The motion to dismiss by Jurisdiction issue: The governing law when the respondent sought
the Municipality of Silang was denied by the court due to lack of merit on registration of their land was the Judiciary Act of 1948 providing
ground that the municipality has no personality to intervene because the permanent station of 2 district judges in Cavite, thus the application was
lot was outside its territorial limits. And even if it is a communal property of filed before the court in Cavite. This was later amended providing for the 4
both municipalities, the incorporation of Cavite to the city judges to preside in the Province of Cavite, the cities of Cavite and
of Tagaytay makes it a property of the latter. Thus the right to action Tagaytay. Following the rule on jurisdiction, the court of the place where
accrues to the municipality of Tagaytay. Upon deliberation, the Clerk of the property is located should take cognizance over the registration of
Court recommended to grant the application with its report disclosing that property therefore upon the creation of Tagaytay City branch of court, the
since time immemorial, the De Los Reyes family owned and possessed application should have been transferred from Cavite to Tagaytay branch.
the land and sold it to the father of the applicant, Pedro Lopez who later Retaining the venue of the application in Cavite however is in order since
took over the ownership and possession of the land. Upon his death, his venue is merely procedural not jurisdictional and may be waived in lieu of
heirs succeeded over the property and subsequently partitioned it. The convenience to the parties. The petitioner’s assailing the jurisdiction of
court thus approved the application and ordered the registration of the the Cavite branch rendering decision in favor of the respondent’s title over
land in favor of the petitioner. the property located in Tagaytay cannot be sustained by the court.
While examining the records in the course of granting the registration to
the petitioners, it was found out that the land was already registered in LABURADA vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
favor of the respondents Honesto de Castro. Apparently, de Castro filed [G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998]
the registration of land in the CFI of Cavite in its Branch IV
in Tagaytay City and a decision was promulgated to issue the decree of FACTS: Sps. Laburada applied for the registration of Lot 3-A which was
registration in his favor. The said land was allegedly owned by approved by the trial court. Upon motion of petitioners, the trial court issued
Hermogenes Orte who sold it to the father of the respondent by virtue of a an order requiring the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration.
deed of sale that was destroyed during Japanese occupation. His father However, the LRA refused. Hence, petitioners filed an action for
continued possession and occupation of the land until his death and his mandamus.
wife and children continued the possession thereof and finally registered it
in their name. 7 years later, the petitioner files a complaint for the The LRA revealed that based on records, Lot 3-A which sought to be
execution of the judgment rendered in their favor by the court and registered by Sps. Laburada is part of Lot No. 3, over which TCT No. 6595
cancellation of title of the respondents and order the respondents to has already been issued. Upon the other hand, Lot 3-B of said Lot 3 is
vacate the property. In their counterclaim, the respondents interpose the covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29337 issued in the name of
defense of latches, prescription and estoppel against the petitioners and Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor, which was issued as a transfer from TCT
asserting the indefeasibility of their title under the Torrens System. No. 6595. The LRA contended that to issue the corresponding decree of
registration sought by the petitioners, it would result in the duplication of
Lower court: held that it could not enforce the judgment against the titles over the same parcel of land, and thus contravene the policy and
respondents considering they were not made parties to the case. Nor can purpose of the Torrens registration system, and destroy the integrity of the
it order the register of deeds of Tagaytay City to cancel the title of same.
respondents since it was not also made a party to the case thus the court
does not acquire jurisdiction over it. Further, the court held that the action ISSUE: Whether or not the LRA may be compelled by mandamus to issue
brought by the petitioners would be tantamount to the nature of collaterally a decree of registration if it has evidence that the subject land may already
attacking the validity of the title of the respondents. be included in an existing Torrens certificate of title?

Court of appeals: Upon appeal to the CA, it re-affirms the lower court’s HELD: NO. It is settled that a land registration court has no jurisdiction to
decision with emphasis on the indefeasibility of the Torrens Title while order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an
citing the Civil Code provisions on Article 1544 on sale of property to earlier land registration case. A second decree for the same land would be
different vendees where in case the land has been registered in the name null and void, since the principle behind original registration is to register a
of two different persons, the earlier in date of registration shall prevail. parcel of land only once. Thus, if it is proven that the land which petitioners
are seeking to register has already been registered in 1904 and 1905, the
issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners will run counter to said
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners can question the validity of the title of principle. The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial
the respondents over the property in dispute? function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be compelled
through mandamus. It is not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a
Ruling: The court held that a land registration is an in rem proceeding decree of registration.
which involves a constructive notice against all persons including the state
which is effective through the publication of the application for land WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED but the case is
registration. The court held that when more than one certificate of title is REMANDED to the court of origin in Pasig City. The LRA, on the other
issued over the land, the person holding the prior certificate of title is hand, is ORDERED to submit to the court a quo a report determining with
entitled to a better right against the person who relies on the subsequent finality whether Lot 3-A is included in the property described in TCT No.
certificate. This rule refers to the date of the certificate of title and not on 6595, within sixty (60) days from notice. After receipt of such report, the
the date of filing the application for registration of title. In land registration land registration court, in turn, is ordered to ACT, with deliberate and
proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to take care of their judicious speed, to settle the issue of whether the LRA may issue the decree
interests and to zealously pursue their objective of registration on account of registration, according to the facts and the law as herein discussed.
of the rule that whoever first acquires title to a piece of land shall prevail.
The publication made with respect to the application of the respondents
served as a constructive notice against the whole world thus the court
Baranda Vs. Gustillo
In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed
Facts: ... or other instrument presented to him, he should have asked the opinion
§ A petition for reconstitution of title was filed with the CFI (now of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the Administrator of the
RTC) of Iloilo involving a parcel of land known as Lot No. 4517 of National Land Title and Deeds Registration Administration in accordance
the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered by OCT No. 6406 in the name with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
of Romana Hitalia.
§ The OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 106098 was issued in the No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD
names of petitioners Baranda and Hitalia. The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and
§ The Court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be
Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honor on the ground determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to
that they also have TCT No. 25772 over the same Lot No. 4517. mean exactly what it says. The statute concerning the function of the
§ The Court found out that TCT No. 257772 was fraudulently Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens certificate of title is
acquired by Perez, Gotera and Susana. clear and leaves no room for construction.
§ Thereafter, the court issued a writ of demolition which was
questioned by Perez and others so a motion for reconsideration BALBIN V. REGISTER OF DEEDS
was filed.
§ Another case was filed by Baranda and Hitalia (GR. NO. 62042) Where several co-owner’s duplicate of certificates of titles are issued, a
for the execution of judgement in the resolutions issued by the voluntary instrument cannot be registered without surrendering all the
courts. copies to the Register of Deeds so that every copy of thereof would contain
§ In the meantime, the CA dismissed a civil case (GR. NO. 00827) identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered.
involving the same properties. (NOTE: This time three cases na
ang involve excluding the case at bar.) FACTS: Petitioners Aurelio and Francis Balbin presented to the Ilocos Sur
§ The petitioners prayed that an order be released to cancel No.T- register of deeds a duplicate copy of the registered owner’s certificate of title
and a deed of donation inter-vivos, requesting that the latter be annotated
25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-106098 and once cancelled to
on the title. The registered owner Cornelio Balbin appears to have
issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S. Baranda and
donated inter-vivos 2/3 portion of the land. The register of deeds denied the
Alfonso Hitalia To cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-
requested annotation for being “legally defective or otherwise not sufficient
106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to
in law.” It appears that previously annotated in the memorandum of
each of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia.
encumbrances on the OCT are three separate sales earlier executed by
§ In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of
Cornelio Balbin in favor of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto Bravo and Juana
Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772
Gabayan, who each received their co-owner’s duplicate CTs. Mainly
null and void, cancelled the same and issued new certificate of
because these 3 co-owner’s copies of CTs had not been presented by
titles in the name of petitioners.
petitioners, the register of deeds refused to make the requested annotation.
§ However, by reason of a separate case pending in the Court of
Petitioners referred the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration,
Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new
who upheld the action of the Register of Deeds in a resolution.
certificate of title.
§ This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the ISSUE: W/N the refusal of the Register of Deeds to make the annotation is
notice of lis pendens in the new certificates. proper
§ Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for
the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but the Acting HELD: YES. There being several copies of the same title in existence, their
Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration invoking Sec integrity may be affected if an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is
77 of PD 1529. annotated on one copy and not on the others. If different copies were
permitted to carry different annotations, the whole system of Torrens
registration would cease to be available.
Issue: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or Since the property subject of donation is also presumed conjugal, that is,
annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title. property of donor Cornelio and his deceased wife Nemesia Mina, “there
should first be a liquidation of the partnership before the surviving spouse
Held: may make such a conveyance.” Assuming the conjugal nature of the
property, the donation bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the duty of of registration, namely, the fact that 2/3 portion of the property which
the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for Cornelio donated was more than ½ his share, not to say more than what
registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all remained of such share after he had sold portions of the same land to 3
the requisites for registration. ... If the instrument is not registrable, he shall other parties.
forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial Pending the resolution of a separate case, wherein Cornelio’s civil status,
in writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his character of land and validity of conveyances are in issue, the registration
right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree." may await the outcome of said case and parties may protect their rights by
filing the proper notices of lis pendens.
Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
regard to the proper step to be taken or memoranda 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 Commission of Land Registration by the
Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds. ...
."

The function of ROD is ministerial in nature