BALBIN V.

REGISTER OF DEEDS
L 20611 | May 8, 1969 | J. Makalintal

Where several co-owners duplicate of certificates of titles are issued, a voluntary instrument
cannot be registered without surrendering all the copies to the Register of Deeds so that every
copy of thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered.

FACTS:

Petitioners Aurelio and Francis Balbin presented to the Ilocos Sur register of deeds a duplicate
copy of the registered owners certificate of title and a deed of donation inter-vivos, requesting
that the latter be annotated on the title. The registered owner Cornelio Balbin appears to have
donated inter-vivos 2/3 portion of the land. The register of deeds denied the requested annotation
for being legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law. It appears that previously
annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances on the OCT are three separate sales earlier
executed by Cornelio Balbin in favor of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto Bravo and Juana Gabayan,
who each received their co-owners duplicate CTs. Mainly because these 3 co-owners copies of
CTs had not been presented by petitioners, the register of deeds refused to make the requested
annotation. Petitioners referred the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who upheld
the action of the Register of Deeds in a resolution.

ISSUE:

W/N the refusal of the Register of Deeds to make the annotation is proper

HELD:

YES. There being several copies of the same title in existence, their integrity may be affected if
an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is 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.

Since the property subject of donation is also presumed conjugal, that is, property of donor
Cornelio and his deceased wife Nemesia Mina, there should first be a liquidation of the
partnership before the surviving spouse may make such a conveyance. Assuming the conjugal
nature of the property, the donation bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial of
registration, namely, the fact that 2/3 portion of the property which Cornelio donated was more
than his share, not to say more than what remained of such share after he had sold portions of
the same land to 3 other parties.

Pending the resolution of a separate case, wherein Cornelios civil status, character of land and
validity of conveyances are in issue, the registration may await the outcome of said case and
parties may protect their rights by filing the proper notices of lis pendens.