1.

In terms of the requirements of registration, what mainly differentiates an involuntary

dealing from a voluntary dealing is that – (2011,2012,2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: An involuntary dealing may be registered without need of surrendering the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title, whereas the registration of a voluntary dealing requires
surrender or the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

2. That which in case of land registered under the Torrens system, transfers ownership of
the land sold – (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: Registration

3. Regarding the choices as to the mode of its reconstitution available to the registered
owner of a certificate of title has been lost or destroyed where the same can be made
based on sources enumerated in Section 2(a), 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b), RA No. 26 as emended
– (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: He is allowed to do so by judicial reconstitution, despite the availability of
administrative reconstitution.

4. Where documents or instruments to be registered with the Register of Deeds are sent to
the said office by registered mail (2012, 2013, 2015)
A: The date of mailing, as stamped on the envelop, is regarded as its registered owner
or other person having interest in the reconstituted certificate of title.

5. The cancellation of the reservation under Section 9, RA No. 26, in case of

administratively reconstituted certificates of title, after the expiration of the two-
year period from the date of the reconstituted title – (2013, 2014. 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: May be made on motion ex parte filed in court by the registered owner or other person
having interest in the reconstituted certificate of title.

6. Would the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of a certificate of title
preclude the subsequent registration on the same or successor certificate of title of an
adverse claim? (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: No, because the two remedies, notice of lis pendens and adverse claim, are not
contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one automatically
nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or
nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or
superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens, and not the annotation of an adverse
claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper
disposition of the claim involved.

7. Original copies of the original certificate of title in files of the Registry of Deeds
bound in consecutive order together with similar certificates of title, constitute –
(2012, 2013, 2018)
A: Registration book for titled properties

8. Section of PD1529 governing the registration of transaction involving unregistered land

(2012)
A: Section 113

9. Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone in the primary entry book produces
the effect of registration, so long as the registrant has complied with all that is
required of him for the purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be
done but a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds (2012, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: To both voluntary and involuntary transactions

10. A notice of lis pendens shall be deemed cancelled, after finality of judgment in
the case to which it relates, upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of
court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal
thereof, whereas a memorandum of the pending consulta under Section 117, PD 1529 on the
certificate of title – (2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018)
A: Shall be cancelled motu proprio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution of
decision thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
11. X bought property from H, who married to W. Before doing so, (1) X asked nephew P,
to investigate the origin of the property and the latter learned that the same formed
part of the properties of W’s first husband; (2) X learned that the said sale was between
the spouses; and (3) X inspected the property, at which time X met all the lessees who
informed him that subject lands belong to W and they had no knowledge that the same lots
were sold to the husband. Considering the sale between H and W was invalid, can X
nevertheless claim the sale to him of said property by H was valid? (2011, 2012, 2013,
2014, 2015, 2016)
A: No, because X cannot claim the rights of an innocent purchases for value as he had
notice of facts that would have led to the discovery of defects in H’s title had he acted
with the measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a
like situation.

12. 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 he is not agreeable to such ruling he may,
without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta. In
such case, where the interested party is dissatisfied by the action taken by the Register
of Deeds, who will elevate the matter by consulta to the LRA? (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, 2018)
A: The interested party, through the Register of Deeds.

13. May transactions entered into by impostors, who are able to fraudulently secure a
new copy of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title while the real owner retains in
his custody or control the genuine owner’s duplicate certificate of title, pass on valid
titles to their purchasers? (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: No, because the real owner never parted with; never handed or delivered to anyone his
owner’s duplicate of the transfer certificate of title; hence, he could not be charged
with negligence in keeping of its duplicate certificate of title or with act which could
have brought about the issuance of other certificate upon which a purchaser in good faith
and for value could rely.

14. Not one of the instances where a proceeding under Section 107, PD 1529, may be
availed of -- (2012, 2013)
A: Where an attachment or other lien in the nature of involuntary dealing in registered
land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is not presented at the time of
registration, and despite notice sent by mail to the registered owner by the Register of
Deeds stating that such paper has been registered, and requesting him to send or produce
his duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of the attachment or other lien may be
made thereon, the owner simply neglects or refuses to comply within reasonable time.

15. Not a ground for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens before finality of
judgment in the case to which it relates -- (2012, 2013, 2018)
A: The party who caused the registration thereof has filed a verified petition with the
Regional Trial Court for the latter to order its cancellation.

16. Unless requested to be cancelled by the person who caused it to be registered, a

notice of adverse claim – (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: May be cancelled only by court despite the lapse of thirty (30) days after its
registration.

17. In administrative reconstitution cases, who may review, revise, modify or affirm
the decision of the reconstitution officer? (2012, 2013, 2014, 2016)
A: The Land Registration Administrator

18. Judicial Reconstitution requires publication in the Official Gazette, as required

under Section 13, Republic Act. No. 26, as amended, whereas administrative reconstitution
-- (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: Requires no publication of notice of the petition but only of the inventory, certified
under oath by the Administrator of the LRA, of lost or destroyed certificates of title,
which is required to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province
or city where the loss or destruction of titles occurs.
19. Where in connection with the registration of involuntary transaction, the
registered owners refuses to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title --
(2012, 2013, 2018)
A: The Register of Deeds is obligated to follow Section 71, PD 1529 and must, therefore,
proceed to register the transaction and require the registered owner to surrender the
owner’s duplicate afterwards, while any party in interest may avail of Section 107, as
appropriate.
s
20. Petitions for administrative reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections
2(a), 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b) of Republic Act. No. 26, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732,
may be filed, given an appropriate case, with -- (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
A: Register of Deeds.

21. Reconstitution of a certificate of title is distinguished from replacement of a

certificate of title in that – (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: Reconstitution relates to the copy on file with the Register of Deeds, while
replacement relates to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

22. An administratively reconstituted title is -- (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016)

A: Less preferable to a judicially reconstituted title because it is subject to
reservations as to rights or interests in the property duly noted on the original thereof
at the time it was lost or destroyed, although not appearing thereon.

23. As regards sources for reconstitution -- (2012, 2014, 2016, 2018)

A: What may serve as source for judicial reconstitution may not serve as source for
administrative reconstitution.

24. In judicial reconstitution proceeding, there is need for rigorous compliance with
exactness and precision – (2011, 2012,2013, 2014, 2016)
A: With the requirements of both Section 12 and 13, as to contents of the petition and
the publication, posting and service of notice thereof.

25. As regards the registration of transaction involving unregistered lands, which

according to Sec. 113, PD 1529 is subject to better rights, the term “better rights” –
(2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: Need not mean priority in time of acquisition but such facts and circumstances as
establish better rights

26. A deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the
grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as
a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the
Register of Deeds to make registration. Once Registered, however – (2011, 2012, 2013,
2014, 2016)
A: The land involved is automatically brought under the operations of the Torrens system
and is considered registered thereunder for all intents and purposes, by virtue of
Section 103, PD 1529.

27. Not a transaction involving less than full ownership of the registered land within
the meaning of Sec. 54, PD 1529 and, consequently, not governed by the procedure for
registration provided therein -- (2012, 2013, 2018)
A: Deed of Absolute Sale

28. Where the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the corresponding fee, is required to
enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of writes and
processes filed with him relating to registered land -- (2012, 2013, 2014)
A: Primary entry book

29. Can the principle that entry of the notice of lis pendens in the day book (primary
entry book) is sufficient to constitute registration and such entry is notice to all
persons thereof, be applied to protect persons who caused the same to be registered but
did not bother to follow up on its annotation on the certificate of title for fifteen
years while the property subject thereto were, in the meantime, being transferred to
several purchaser who relied upon the certificate of title which did not bear such
annotation? (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
 A: No, the persons who caused the registration of the notice of lis pendens are guilty
of laches, for sleeping on their rights for almost fifteen years and should not be
protected at the expense of the persons who had the right to rely upon the certificate
of title that did not bear said annotation of lis pendens.

30. Can a bank record a notice of adverse claim for money claims owning from debtors
or unsecured loans on titles to land registered in the names of such debtors? (2011,
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: No, a mere money claim may not be registered as an adverse claim on a torrens
certificate of title because to be registerable as such the claim asserted must affect
the title or be adverse to the title of the registered owner.

31. In case of sale on execution of land covered by a Torrens title, what must the
execution sheriff do after the auction sale in order to affect and bind the land? (2012,
2013, 2014, 2016, 2018)
A: Execute a certificate of sale and, by himself, proceed to register the same with the
registry of Deeds, regardless of the absence of the owner’s duplicate certificate of
title.

32. A petition to correct, alter or amend the certificate of title under Section 108,
PD 1529 is not available -- (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: Where it is sought to reopen the judgment or decree of registration.

33. In administrative reconstitution cases, what is the period of time, from receipt
of the order or judgment of the reconstitution officer, within which an aggrieved party
may take an appeal to the appropriate appellate or reviewing authority? (2013, 2014,
2016)
A: 15 days from receipt of order of judgment (Taken from B. Den’s Essay -- BB 2016)

34. May a notice of lis pendens be annotated on the basis of the pendency of
guardianship proceedings? (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
A: Yes, as when there is clearly a need to warn any person interested in any property
titled in the name of the person sought to be placed under guardianship, among others,
of the pendency of the guardianship proceedings which might eventually result in the
invalidation of any transaction made by said person affecting such property.

35. In a suit for a recovery of possession of land, can the validity of a reconstitute
title on which the plaintiff claims ownership thereof be assailed, where the ground is
lack of service of personal notice regarding the institution of the reconstitution
proceeding, although publication and posting of notice; as well as the fact of
reconstitution proceeding, is not in dispute? (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: The fact of reconstitution of title to the land in question not being in dispute,
such a defense would not prosper, not being in the nature of a direct attack on the
legality of the issuance of the reconstituted title, whereas a judicially reconstituted
title has the same validity and legal effect as the original thereof and there is
presumption of regularity in the issuance of the reconstituted title

36. Basic requirement to register with the Register of Deeds transaction involving
agricultural lands (2012, 2013, 2014)
A: DAR Clearance

37. Moment when all instruments including copies of writs and processes filed with the
Register of Deeds relating to registered land are regarded as registered (2012, 2013,
2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: From the time they are noted in the primary entry book

38. A consulta, as is generally understood, is the reference of a question to the

Commissioner of Land Registration by a Register of Deeds when he is in doubt as to the
proper step to be taken when a deed or instrument is presented to him for registration.
Therefore, a statement on the on the certificate of title that the property described
therein is “subject to the resolution of a consulta” -- (2012, 2013, 2014, 2016)
A: Unlike a notice of adverse claim, cannot serve as a notice and warning to third
persons dealding with the property that someone is claiming an interest in the same or
a better title than that of the registered owner thereof.
39. X, a lessee of registered land, plans to build a 8-storey hotel, on such land. He
seeks to protect his ownership over the hotel building, which he intended to retain
throughout the life of the lease and its renewals. Under the circumstances – (2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: He should institute a petition under section 108, PD 1529 to obtain a court order
directing the annotation of his interest over the building on the certificate of title
covering the land

40. X, a co-owner of registered land desires to sell his interest therein, but his
owners refused to agree to its partition. There being a willing buyer for his interest,
X sells the same. Under the circumstances, however – (2011,2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2018)
A: The Register of Deeds should not register the transaction without requiring the
surrender of all co-owners’ duplicate certificates of title.

41. A parcel of land in Las Pinas, covered by TCT No. 1 in the name of “V” Realty, was
converted into a subdivision called Varfield. Block 4 of this subdivision had Lots 1 and
2. Last July 7, 2012 a certain “E” caused to be annotated on TCT no. 1, which continued
to cover all lots in Varfield, a notice of lis pendens with reference to Lot 2 thereof.
On July 10, 2012, “K” caused to be annotated on the same title a notice of adverse claim
over Lot 2. On July 12, 2012, a certain “G” caused to be annotated on said title a notice
of adverse claim over lot 1, based on an agreement to sell executed in his favor by “V”
Realty. On July 20, 2012, a notice of lis pendens was presented by a certain “B” involving
Lot 2, while “D” presented a notice of adverse claim affecting the same lot. On August
5, 2012, the case filed by “B” involving Lot 2 was dismissed and was never appealed. On
September 12, 2004, “V” Realty and “G” executed a deed of absolute sale over Lot 1. As
buyer, “G” sought to have the sale registered and title issued in his favor, free from
any encumbrance. Under the circumstances, what must the Register of Deeds do? (2016)
A: The requisites of Deeds must issue the title in favor of G as none of the annotations
made effect lot 1:
- E caused annotation but in reference to lot 2
- K caused annotation over Lot 2
- B caused annotation over lot 2
Given the forgoing, the title free from any encumbrance must be issued by the Register
of Deeds in favor of G.
(Boss Den’s BB)

A: The Register of Deeds must issue to “G” a new Transfer Certificate of Title free from
any encumbrance since all of the Controversy annotated in TCT no. 1 all refer to Lot 2.
“G”’s TCT free from any encumbrance refers to Lot 1.
42. Q: In case of loss or theft of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the
issuance of a new duplicate certificate may be ordered – (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,
2016)
A: Upon a petitioner of the registered owner or other person in interest, before an
appropriate court, after notice and due hearing.

43. In a case for replacement of a lost or destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate of

title, does Section 109, PD 1529 require notice to the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), such that lack of notice to the OSG would constitute a jurisdictional defect?
(2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
A: No, there is nothing in Section 109, PD 1529, requiring such notice to be given to
the OSG in petitions for replacement of owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

44. Land registered under the Torrens system was sold on execution subject to a twelve-
month period of redemption. When does this one-year period start to run? (2012, 2013,
2014, 2016, 2018)
A: From the time the certificate of sale is registered with the Registry of Deeds where
the land lies.

45. Period of time within which to elevate by consulta to the Land Registration
Administrator, any matter involving denial of registration of an instrument by the
Register of Deeds, reckoned from date receipt of notice of the denial of registration -
- (2012, 2013, 2014)
A: five [5] days
46. A notice of adverse claim is appropriate where a person claims any part or interest
in registered land adverse to the registered owner – (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016)
A: Where no specific provision of PD 1529 authorizes the registration of such claim,
although the claim arose after the land was brought under the operation of the Torrens
system.

47. A notarial document recorded with the Registry of Deeds, pertaining to land
registered under the Torrens system , was the subject of criminal prosecution for
falsification. The prescriptive period runs from the “date of discovery”, according to
Article 91, RPC. When should such “discovery” be considered to have taken place? (2012,
2013, 2014, 2016)
A: In legal contemplation, discovery must be reckoned to have taken place from the time
the document was registered in the Register of Deeds, for familiar rule is that
registration is a notice to the whole world.

48. Administrative reconstitution is certainly not available – (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
2014, 2015, 2016, 2018)
A: When the petitioner for reconstitution is not based on sources enumerated in Section
2(a), 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b) of Republic Act No. 26, as amended by Republic Act. No. 6732

49. In contrast to a judicially reconstituted title, and administratively reconstituted

title is subject to a statutory reservation under Sec. 7, Republic Act. No. 26, as
amended by Republic Act. No. 6723, established in favor of any party whose right or
interest in the property was duly noted in the original or at the time it was lost or
destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted
certificate of title. Such reservation is – (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018)
A: Effective for a period of two years from the issuance of the administratively
reconstituted certificate of title but may be cancelled, whether during the same period
or thereafter, by an appropriate proceeding in court.

50. Frequency and number of times the Notice of Initial Hearings is required to be
published in the Official Gazette in case of judicial reconstitution of certificates of
title (2012, 2013, 2014)
A: Once a week for two consecutive weeks
[Explain Your Understanding]

2018
1. Distinguish between the proceedings contemplated under [a] Sec. 109 and [b] Sec. 110, as amended of PD 1592
a. Sec. 109 – covers replacement of lost or destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate of title.
i. A petition should be filled in court, and after notice and hearing, the court shall decide on the petition
b. Sec. 110 – covers reconstitution of lost or destroyed register of deed’s copies of certificate of title
i. There are 2 ways to reconstitute title: (1) Judicial reconstitution and (2) administrative reconstitution
2. Compare and contrast [a] an administratively reconstituted title from [b] one issued pursuant to a judicial proceeding
a. Administratively reconstituted title:
i. Will not prejudice parties who have interests annotated in the original title when it was lost or destroyed and was
not annotated in the reconstituted title.
ii. Parties are given 2 years to challenger or cancel an administratively reconstituted title. The 2-year period starts from
the date of issuance of the administratively reconstituted title and may be cancelled whether during the same period
or thereafter, through an appropriate proceeding in court
b. A reconstituted title issued pursuant to a judicial proceeding
i. It is accorded the same respect as that of the original title.
c. Thus, an administratively reconstituted title is less preferred because of the statutory reservation under Sec. 7 of RA 26.
3. Explain the legal effects of registration of a transaction involving unregistered land under Sec. 113, PD 1529, and discuss the legal
consequences if the same is availed of to register a transaction involving land still in the process of registration in court.*
a. Sec. 113 covers dealing with unregistered land. It states that any dealings affecting land not registered under the Torrens
system will not be valid, except as between the parties thereto, until it’s recorded in the manner prescribed under this law in
the Register of Deeds of the place where the land lies.
b. Registration of a transaction involving unregistered land will not prejudice third parties with a better right.
c. *If un the process of registering the land in court, one registers a transaction, it will not be considered as a registration under
the Torrens Title. The fact remains that at the time of registration of the transaction, the land was still an unregistered land.
4. In the context of judicial reconstitution, what differences arise in a situation [a] where the source for reconstitution is an owner’s/co-
owner’s duplicate certificate of title, from one [b] where some other source for reconstitution is relied upon.
a. When the source for reconstitution is an owner’s/co-owner’s duplicate certificate of title:
i. Sec. 9 and 10 of RA 26 applies.
ii. What is required are as follows:
1. Publication of notice in the Official Gazette
2. Posting of notice in the door of the Provincial Hall where the property is located
3. A hearing will be held.
b. When some other source for reconstitution is relied upon:
i. Sec. 12 and 15 (?) of RA 26 applies.
ii. This has more stringent requirements compared to Sec. 9 and 10 since there is a need for a “personal notice” to all
occupants of the property as well as occupants of adjoining lots.
iii. This is in addition to the requirements of publication in the OG and posting notice in the city/provincial/municipal
hall where the property is located.
5. Discuss [a] how a notice of lis pendens may be terminated and [b] how a notice of adverse claim may be cancelled.*
a. *A notice of lis pendens shall be deemed terminated, after finality of judgment in the case to which it relates, upon the
registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of its
disposal.
b. A notice of adverse claim may be cancelled only by court despite the lapse of thirty (30) days after its registration.
c. Find more answers ‘cause this only got 4 points.  “an adverse claim may only be cancelled upon filing of a petition before
the court which shall conduct a hearing on its validity while a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled without a court hearing.”
2017

1. [a] Distinguish a notice of adverse claim from a notice of lis pendens

a. Notice of adverse claim: Unless requested to be cancelled by the person who caused it to be registered, a notice of adverse
claim may be cancelled only by court despite the lapse of thirty (30) days after its registration. Also, a notice of adverse claim
is appropriate where a person claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner where no
specific provision of PD 1529 authorizes the registration of such claim, although the claim arose after the land was brought
under the operation of the Torrens system.
b. Notice of lis pendens. A notice of lis pendens will only be deemed cancelled after finality of judgment of the case which it
relates to and upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court, stating the manner of its disposal, in which the
action it was pending.
c. From the the case of Valderama v Arguelles:
i. The main differences between the two are as follows: (1) an adverse claim protects the right of a claimant during
the pendency of a controversy while a notice of lis pendens protects the right of the claimant during the pendency
of the action or litigation; and (2) an adverse claim may only be cancelled upon filing of a petition before the court
which shall conduct a hearing on its validity while a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled without a court hearing.
[b] Under PD 1529, how, if at all possible, may a notice of adverse claim and a notice of lis pendes complement each other
a. A notice of lis pendens is totally different from an adverse claim in that they are mutually exclusive of one another. One
doesn’t preclude the other from being annotated. They may complement one another when the case pending would also be
a claim against the title of the registered owner of the land.

2. [a] Distinguish the proceedings contemplated under Sec. 109 (replacement of certificate of titles) and Sec. 110, (reconstitution of
certificates of title)
a. Replacement of certificate of title – refer to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title
b. Reconstitution of certificate of title – refers to the copy on file with the Registry of Deeds
[b] Compare and contrast an administratively reconstituted title from one issued pursuant to a judicial proceeding
c. In contrast to a judicially reconstituted title, and administratively reconstituted title is subject to a statutory reservation
under Sec. 7 of RA No. 26. It is established in favor of any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the
original or at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted
certificate of title. Such reservation is effective for 2 years from the issuance of the administratively reconstituted certificate
of title but may be cancelled, whether during the same period or thereafter, by an appropriate proceeding in court.
3. X sold to Y a parcel of land. The transaction was not registered by Y proceeded to develop the land into a subdivision project. A month
after, Z obtained a judgment against the X and the same parcel of land already sold by X to Y was levied upon and sold agains by the
Sheriff to Z.
a. [a] If the problem deals with unregistered parcel of land, who, as between Y and Z, should prevail as owner of the land?
i. Y, as owner of the land, prevails over Z. Since the land is unregistered, the fact that the transaction of Y and X is
prior to the judgment obtained by Z, and that the land was already in the possession of Y and was being developed
by the latter means that Y has a better right to the land.
b. [b] If the problem dealt with a parcel of land that is subject of a pending land registration proceeding, whose claim of
ownership over the land would prevail?* (1 point only)
i. If the subject to a pending land registration proceeding, Y’s claim of ownership still prevails because the land is still
consdiuered unregistered until the judgment of the land registration proceeding
4. In contrast to a judicially reconstituted title, and administratively reconstituted title is subject to a statutory reservation under Sec. 7 of
RA No. 26. It is established in favor of any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original or at the time it
was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title.
a. [a] How long is such reservation effective?
i. Effective for 2 years from the issuance of the administratively reconstituted certificate of titl
b. [b] What recourse is available, if any, for its cancellation prior to the end of that period?
i. It may be cancelled, whether during the same period or thereafter, by an appropriate court proceeding.
[Problem Solving]

2018
1. X is a foreigner who desires to construct a hotel upon a pice of land registered under the Torrens system in the name of Y, but is aware
of the constitutional prohibition against ownership of land by aliens. X, nevertheless, wants to be known legally as the owner of the
building, and for his ownership of building to be protected against both the owner of the land and against the latter’s creditors and
successors-in-interest.
a. Discuss whether the Property Registration Decree contains provisions that X may use to protect his interest, identifying them, if
any.
i. PD 1529 provides in Sec. 108, that parties with interest in a registered land may annotate their interests in the
certificate of Title, through a court order
b. If you have answered [a] affirmatively, identify in general terms what steps X could take towards such end; otherwise, identify
any other legal provisions, that may apply under the circumstances.
i. X could file a petition in court, under Sec. 108, and after obtaining an order from the Court, the Court may direct
the annotation of X’s interest on the land’s title inscribing therein that X has an interest on the building. By doing so,
if the land is eventually foreclosed, the building will not be foreclosed because of the annotation on the land’s title.
2. A parcel of land in Las Pinas, covered by TCT No. 1, in the name of “V” Realty, was converted into a subdivision called Varfield. Block 4
of this subdivision had Lots 1 and 2…(3.5 points only)
a. As lawyer of “G,” state with reasons if you would advise “G” to insist on his position
i. I would insist on the petition since the annotations are on Lot 2 of TCT No. 1, while the property in dispute is Lot 1,
wherein the annotation is only between G and V Realty, the parties to the sale. Lot 1 is not affected by the dispute
over Lot 2 notwithstanding the fact that they belong to 1 TCT.
b. Under the circumstances, what legal remedies, if any, may you avail of to obtain for “G” a clean title to Lot 1.* (1 point only)
i. (?) The Register of Deeds must issue a new certificate of title over Lot 1 to “G” without carrying all annotation on TCT
No. 1 because , after all, none of the annotations on TCT No. 1 affect the lot 1 sold by “V” realty to G.
3. X paid his loan to Bank Y. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage, so X demanded that the real estate mortgage be discharged
and that his owner’s duplicate certificate of title be returned to him. Bank Y executed a Deed of Discharge of Real Estate Mortgage,
which it promptly sent to X, but refused to return the owner’s duplicate certificate of title on the ground that X is also a co-maker of
other unsecured obligations it extended in favor od Z, which remained unpaid.
a. What remedies, if any, may X avail of under the provisions of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) in order to be able to
register the Deed of Discharge of Real Estate Mortgage under the circumstances
i. X should file a petition in court under PD 1529. After obtaining an order from the court, Bank Y can now be compelled
to surrender the Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title. The Court may also direct that the Deed of Discharge of REM
be registered by the RD.
ii. Furthermore, the address the act of Bank Y of withholding X’s ODCT, because of an unpaid unsecured loan, the case
of Sanchez v CA is relevant. In that case, it was held that money claims cannot be consider as an adverse claim. An
adverse claim can only be invoked if a party has an interest in the title of the property and it is adverse to the owner’s
interest. A money claim is a personal claim and can’t be said to affect the title of real property.
b. Given the circumstance in which Bank Y has found itself, what remedies, if any, may it avail of? (1 point)*
4. On Sept. 14, 1994, a Notice of Levy was presented for registration in the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City. The notice was entered in the
Primary Entry Book, the corresponding fees having been paid…
a. Can IS be considered an innocent purchaser for value of the subject property?
i. No, IS cannot be considered an innocent purchaser for value.
ii. According to DPB v RD of Nueva Ecija, the entry of a transaction in the primary entry book is equivalent to
Registration. It is considered as “notice to the whole world.”
iii. This doctrine applies if the registrant has done all that is required of him. This means that he has given the voluntary
instrument, paid the registration and the entry fees, and the OCT to the RD. Or, if it is a involuntary proceeding, then
the involuntary instrument and registration and entry fees.
iv. In this case, it was clearly the RD employee who was negligent when he didn’t annotate the Notice of Levy.
v. Since the registrant has done all that is incumbent upon him, the entry in the primary entry book is considered a
notice to the world. The public is charged with knowledge of the Notice of Levy. Hence, IS is considered to have
knowledge of the prior notice of levy, and is NOT an innocent purchaser for value.
5. In a case, the CA categorically declared X, as against Y, the absolute owner of a parcel of land, although the certificates of title appear
to be registered in the name of Y. That decision as affirmed by the SC, became final and executory, and was remanded to the lower
court of execution. The Register of Deeds refused on the ground that the manner should be referred ‘en consulta’ to the Register of
Deeds…
a. Is it correct for the Register of Deeds to refuse to issue the certificate of title in the name of X and to contend that the execution
of the aforesaid final and executor decision, which is to issue titles in the name of X, cannot be compelled by mandamus because
of the ‘formality’ that the registered owner must first surrender her duplicate certificates of title for cancellation per Sec. 80 of
PD 1529 before a new one could be issued in favor of the winning party?
i. No, the register of deeds shouldn’t refuse to issue the certificates of title in the name of X, as ordered by the SC.
Aside from the fact that the SC is the highest court and its decision is accorded with authority and finality, the
Register of Deed’s task of registering titles, etc., is only MINISTERIAL.
[2017]

1. X, as co-owner of registered land desires to sell his interest therein, but his co-owners refused to agree to its partition. There being a
willing buyer for his interest, X sells the same. Under the circumstances, however, what should the Register of Deeds do before register
the transaction?
a. The register of deeds should require the surrender of all the co-owner’s duplicate certificate of title before registering the
transaction

2016

1. A writ of execution was issued on 26 August 1968, by virtue of which a “Notice of Attachment or Levy” was made by the Sheriff on the
property of B, including a lot covered by TCT No. 14749… (#1)
a. Can a petition for cancellation of TCT No. T-14749 be filed by SDC, instead of compelling STC’s successors-in-interest to surrender
the owner’s duplicate thereof?
i. Yes, SDC can file a petition for cancellation of TCT No. T-14749. STC’s successors-in-interest in the ODCT because
such certificate is not required in an involuntary proceeding.
2. X a lessee of registered land, plans to build an 8-storey hotel, on the land. He seeks to protect his ownership over the hotel building,
which he intended to retain throughout the life of the lease and its renewals. Under the circumstances, what can X do to protect his
interest over the hotel he constructed on leased land?
a. To protect his interest over the hotel, X may file a petition with the court to have such interest annotated to the title of the
land.
3. A Notice of Levy on Attachment on Real Property dated September 12, 1994, issued in a civil case, “levying all the rights, claims, shares,
interests, and participation of [EBRRC, defendant in said case] (#5)
a. Was it correct for the LRA Administrator to refer to the court the propriety of annotating the notice of levy on attachment?
i. The LRA Administrator was correct. Since IS refused to surrender the documents, it shall be the court who will
have the authority to order the annotation of the notice of levy.
4. X bought a property from H, who is married to W. Before doing so (1) X asked his nephew P, to investigate the origin of the property
and the latter learned that the same formed part of the properties of W’s first husband… (#6)
a. Can X nevertheless claim the sale to him of said property by H was valid?
i. X can’t claim that the sale to him was valid. Through his exercise of due diligence, he was able to learn that there
was a defect in the title of H. X cannot be considered a purchaser in good faith and he can’t claim such property
from H.
5. TCT No. T-17224 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental on March 16, 1933, covering Lot. No. 663 in the name of M,
predecessor of X and others. Spouses ZY and Z… (#7)
a. Would the issuance in 1989 of a reconstituted original certificates of title bearing the number OCT No. RA 12890 (NA) over
Lot.663 be invalid?
i. The issuance in 1989 of a original certificate of title bearing the number OCT No. RA 12890 is VOID because of the
existence of TCT No. 17224 in favor of M’s certificate was never lost or destroyed.
6. In a petition for reconstitution filed under Sec. 12/13 of RA 26, the initial order setting the case for initial hearing was amended, and
actual occupants of the land have not been notified thereof. X, the petitioner therein, admits that th e amended Order has not been
published… (#9)
a. Could X’s contention be sustained?
i. No, X’s contention cannot be sustained. Such omission is not a minor lapse. The amended order needs to be
published again in order to bind the occupants of the land.
7. Spouses. X and Y successively obtained a writ of preliminary attachment of a registered land covered by TCT No. S-33634 in the name
of P, and the notice of attachment was then entered in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds of Pasay… (#10)
a. Should the spouses W and Z prevail over the Spouses X and Y in terms of having a better right to the property?
i. Spouses X and Y have a better right to the property. The entry in the Primary Entry Book on Oct. 6. 1982, produced
the effect of registration. The sale in favor of spouses W and Z was made on October 18, 1982. Spouses X and Y
prevail because they have complied with all that is required of them and there was entry in the primary entry book
prior to the sale to the spouses W and Z.