COMMON

PROBLEMS

IN

PRACTICE

AND

PROCEDURE

BEFORE REGISTRIES OF DEEDS INCIDENT TO SUBSEQUENT

REGISTRATION: CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
I. Title issued in name of Heirs of __________
A. Rule
B. Effect
II. Presentation of title necessary
A. General Rule
B. Importance of the surrender of the owners
duplicate certificate of title
C. Rules if the owners duplicate certificate is
forged
1. General rule
a. G.R.
No.
JOAQUIN, vs.

L-13551,

CONSTANCIO

ABUNDIO

MADRID,

ET

AL.
2. Forged deed may be the basis of a good
title
b. G.R. No. L-41377, ANGELA BLONDEAU
and FERNANDO DE LA CANTERA Y
UZQUIANO

vs.

AGUSTIN NANO and JOSE VALLEJO

D.Rule in pacto de retro sale
E. Exceptions as to the rule that the register of
deeds has no authority to register conveyance
without the grantors duplicate certificate of
title first being presented.
1. Provision of Sec 53, PD 1589 as to the
exception
2. Rules in registration

of

involuntary

dealings
F. Rules if the if holder of owners duplicate does
want to surrender

I. Title issued in name of Heirs of _______

A. RULE:
Where a certificate of title is issued in the name of the
heirs of __________, the property covered is deemed to be
owned by, as it is registered in the name of,

such heirs

although not named (LRC CONSULTA NO. 463, CHICANO

VS REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SAMAR, OCTOBER 5, 1964).
B. EFFECT:
Further settlement of the estate is superfluous and
what is only needed is the identification of the heirs.
IF THE HEIRS WISH FOR THE TERMINATION OF COOWNERSHIP, they must execute and register an instrument
of partition accompanied with corresponding subdivision
plan.
The rule and effects of such problem insofar as the
registration of the certificate of title issued in the name of
the heirs of ________ had been promulgated in the case of
CHICANO VS REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SAMAR. The Court held
that:
Where a certificate of title is issued in the name of
the Heirs of Cesario Chicano, the property covered is
deemed to be owned by, as it is registered in name of, such
heirs although not named. Further settlement of the estate
of their predecessor in interest is superfluous. What may
only be needed is to identify who these heirs are. If what is
desired is to terminate the existing co-ownership among
them, then what they should execute and register is an

instrument of partition accompanied with corresponding

subdivision plan (LRC CONSULTA NO. 463, CHICANO VS
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SAMAR, OCTOBER 5, 1964).

II. Presentation of title necessary

The real problem therein is the registration of conveyance
without the grantors duplicate certificate of title. As a general
rule, the register of deeds has no authority to register conveyance
without the grantors duplicate certificate of title first being
presented.
The basis of the general rule is Sec. 53 of PD 1529, which
states that:
No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the
Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is
presented with such instrument,except in cases expressly
provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for
cause shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate,
whenever

any

registration,

voluntary

shall

be

instrument

conclusive

is

presented

authority

from

for
the

registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new

certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in
accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or
memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner
and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every
purchaser for value and in good faith.
It was held in the case of Reyes v. Register of Deeds of
Cagayan that failure to present such certificate of title is sufficient

ground

for

the

Register

of

Deeds

to

deny

registration

(LRCConsulta No. 101, Reyes v. Register of Deeds of Cagayan,

August 22, 1956).
For it is the surrender of the owners duplicate certificate
whenever a voluntary instrument is filed for registration that gives
the Register of Deeds the conclusive authority to first enter a new
certificate of title or second, to make a memorandum of
registration in accordance with such instrument (LRC Consulta
No. 101, Reyes v. Register of Deeds of Cagayan, August 22, 1956;
Sec 53, par 2. of PD 1529 )
The requirement to present the owners duplicate
certificate under Sec 53 of PD 1529 is a safeguard against
fraud. However, a problem arises when the owners duplicate
certificate of title has been forged. Two rules arise if such is the
case.
First, in the case where there was no transfer of the certificate
title from the true owner to the forger, then the general rule must
be followed. The general rule states that a forged deed is a
nullity and conveys no title (Sec. 53, PD 1529).
The same rule had been used in the case of Joaquin vs.
Madrid.
In the case, spouses Abundio Madrid and
Rosalinda Yu are the owners of a residential lot. Planning to
build a house thereon, the said spouses sought short.
Carmencita de Jesus, godmother of Rosalinda, offered to
work for the shortening of the usually long process before a
loan could be granted. The spouses accepted the offer of
assistance and they delivered to de Jesus the Transfer
Certificate of Title covering the lot in. Later the spouses were
able to secure a loan of P4,000.00 from their parents for the
construction of their house and they decided to withdraw the
application for a loan. They informed de Jesus and asked her
to retrieve the Transfer Certificate of Title and return it to

them. Shortly thereafter, de Jesus told them, however, that

the employee in charge of keeping the Transfer Certificate of
Title was out on leave. A certain Florentino Calayag showed
up in the house of the spouses and asked for Abundio Madrid
and Rosalinda Yu. Rosalinda answered that she was
Rosalinda Yu and Abundio, that he was Abundio Madrid.
Calayag would not believe them. He said that he was looking
for Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu who had executed a
deed of mortgage on the lot where the house they were in
then stood, and that the term of the mortgage had already
expired, he added. Abundio and Rosalinda then retorted that
they had not mortgaged their land to anyone. They found
out then that the land had been mortgaged to Constancio
Joaquin.
Joaquin said that
Carmencita de Jesus saw
Florentino Calayag and asked the latter to find a moneylender who could grant a loan on a security of real property,
showing, at the same time, a Transfer Certificate of Title in
the name of the spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu.
Calayag approached Joaquin who having funds to spare for
the purpose, visited the land then Calayag to show him the
prospective borrowers. On the following day, Calayag
brought two women who were presented to Constancio as
Rosalinda Yu and Carmencita de Jesus. The alleged Rosalinda
Yu claimed to be the owner of the lot with her husband
Abundio Madrid who authorized her to secure a loan on their
property. Thus, the deed of mortgage was signed by the
persons who posed themselves as Abundio Madrid and
Rosalinda Yu on the following day. The whole amount of the
loan was delivered to the supposed Rosalinda Yu
immediately after the registration of the document of
mortgage in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
The CA ruled:
. . . that as the land mortgaged
was still in the name of the real owner when
mortgaged to the mortgagees by an
impostor, the mortgagees were defrauded
not because they relied upon what appeared
in a Torrens certificate of title, but because
they believed the words of the impostor;

that it was the duty of the mortgagees to

ascertain the identity of the man with whom
they were dealing.

The appellate court below further found that the petitioner

"visited the property proposed for mortgage to find out at the
same time who was the real owner thereof. But he contented
himself with the information given to him by the person living
then on the land that the owner was woman known as 'Taba'.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the appellate court. The Court held that the last
proviso is a limitation of the first part of par. 2 (now Sec
53, PD 1529) in the sense that in order that the holder
of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the
registration

of

voluntary

instrument

may

be

considered a holder in good faith for value, the

instrument registered should not be forged. When
the

instrument

presented

is

forged,

even

if

accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of

title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his
title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed
acquire any right or title to the property. The fact is,
however, that petitioner herein is not, the innocent
purchaser for value protected by law is one who
purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed
by the registered owner himself, not by a forged
deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the
situation of the petitioner, who has been the victim of
impostors pretending to be registered owners but who
are not said owners (G.R. No. L-13551 CONSTANCIO
JOAQUIN vs. ABUNDIO MADRID, ET AL.)

Second, in the case where there was a transfer of certificate

of title from the true owner to the name of the forger, and while it
remained that way the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser the rule that a forged deed may be the basis of a good
title in the hands of a bona fide purchaser must be followed.
The same rule had been used in the case of BLONDEAU vs.
NANO. The action was brought in the Court of First Instance of
Manila to foreclose a mortgage alleged to have been made by the
defendants Agustin Nano and Jose Vallejo to the plaintiff Angela
Blondeau.
In the case, Jose Vallejo owns a piece of land. He entrusted
his title to his relative Agustin Nano who subsequently mortgaged
the property to Angela Blondeau. Thereafter, Blondeau lent
12,000 pesos. The deed of mortgage was executed in the home of
the plaintiffs, and that of those present, the principal plaintiff
Angela Blondeau and her husband Fernando de la Cantera,
together with the instrumental witness Pedro Jimenez Zoboli. A
forged power of attorney transferred the title of Vallejo in favor of
Nano. It is significant that the proper cedulas of Vallejo were
presented for the accomplishment of the documents.
Upon its face, the mortgage appears to be regular and to
have been duly executed. To wit, Agustin Nano had possession of
Jose Vallejo's title papers. Without those title papers handed over
to Nano with the acquiescence of Vallejo, a fraud could not have
been perpetrated. When Fernando de la Cantera, a member of the
Philippine bar and the husband of Angela Blondeau, the principal
plaintiff, searched the registration records, he found them in due
form, including the power of attorney of Vallejo, in favor of Nano.
If this had not been so and if thereafter the proper notation of the
encumbrance could not have been made, Angela Blondeau would
not have lent P12,000 to the defendant Vallejo.

The issue is whether a forged deed may be the basis of a

good title.
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The Court
held that:
Nano had possession of Jose Vallejo's title papers.
Without those title papers handed over to Nano with
the acquiescence of Vallejo, a fraud could not have
been perpetrated. When Fernando de la Cantera, a
member of the Philippine bar and the husband of
Angela Blondeau, the principal plaintiff, searched the
registration records, he found them in due form,
including the power of attorney of Vallejo, in favor of
Nano. If this had not been so and if thereafter the
proper notation of the encumbrance could not have
been made Blondeau would not have lent P12,000 to
the defendant Vallejo.
The Torrens Act permits a forged transfer, when
duly entered in the registry, to become the root of a
valid title in a bona fide purchaser. The act erects a
safeguard against a forged transfer being registered, by
the requirement that no transfer shall be registered
unless the owner's certificate was produced along with
the instrument of transfer. An executed transfer of
registered lands placed by the registered owner thereof
in the hands of another operates as a representation to
a third party that the holder of the transfer is
authorized to deal with the lands.
Moving

forward,

where

pacto

de

retro

sale

was

presented for registration, without the owners duplicate

certificate having been surrendered in accordance with law, it

should be denied of registration. (LRC Consulta No. 36, Register of

Deeds of Albay, pet., March 29, 1955)

Section 53 of PD 1529 laid down the exceptions of the

general rule that no voluntary instrument shall be registered by
the Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is
presented with such instrument.

The instances are in cases

expressly provided for in PD 1529 or when said official has been

ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction to proceed with
jurisdiction. (Sec 53, PD 1529)
There are some instances where presentation of
owners duplicate certificate is no longer necessary. It is if
the documents to be registered are attachment or Lis Pendens.
The following are the rules in the registration of involuntary
dealings.
First, If the owners duplicate was not presented and
the party withholding cannot or refuses to deliver to the
Office of the Registry of Deeds without just cause, he Court
at the instance of the party in interest may by decree annul
said duplicate title and order a new one to be entered in lieu
thereof .
(LRC Consulta No. 73 Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija v.
Philippine National Bank, January 3, 1956).
Second, the presentation of the owners duplicate
before a new one may be issued will be indispensable.
(Sec.107, PD 152; LRC Consulta No. 73 Register of Deeds of
Nueva Ecija v. Philippine National Bank, January 3, 1956).

If the owner of the title does not want to surrender

the owners duplicate certificate, the provisions of Section
107 of PD 1529 will be the basis. The party in interest may file a
petition in court to COMPEL SURRENDER or the court, after
hearing, may ORDER to SURRENDER THE owners duplicate of
title then DIRECT the entry of a new certificate or memorandum
upon such surrender.

COMMON PROBLEMS IN PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

BEFORE REGISTRIES OF DEEDS INCIDENT TO SUBSEQUENT
REGISTRATION:
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Title issued in name of Heirs of __________

Presentation of title necessary

Charmainne Mel T. Napadao

Land Titles and Deeds