Sps Lita De Leon & Felix Rio Tarrosa v Anita
De Leon, Danilo De Leon and Vilma De Leon
Facts:
On July 20, 1965, Bonifacio De Leon, the
single, and PHHC entered into a conditional
contract to sell for the purchase on
installment of a lot.
On April 24, 1968, Bonifacio married Anita
De Leon.
On June 22, 1970, following the full payment
of the cost price of the subject lot, PHHC
executed a final deed of sale in favor of
Bonifacio De Leon, single and later on
February 24, 1972 a TCT was transferred in
the name of Bonifacio De Leon and a civil
status bearing “single”
Subsequently, Bonifacio sold the lot to his
sister, Lita and husband Felix Tarrosa, herein
petitioner. The deed of sale executed
between Bonifacio and Sps Tarrosa without
bearing the written consent and signature of
of Anita. Bonifacio died on February 29,
1996.
Three months later, the Sps Tarrosa
registered the Deed of Sale. The children of
Bonifacio, namely Danilo and Vilma , filed a
Notice of Adverse Claim before the Register
of Deeds to protect their rights over the
subject property, as well as, reconveyance
suit.
Issue: Whether or not the land purchased
by Sps. Tarrosa belongs to the conjugal
propert of Bonifacio and Anita De Leon.
Held: Yes
The subject property is the conjugal propert
of Sps. Bonifacio and Anita De Leon.
Article 160 of the Civil Code was the
governing provision in effect at the time
Bonifacio and Anita contracted marriage.
The provision provides that all property of
the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership unless it is proved that
it pertains exclusively to the husband or the
wife.
In the case at bar, the title to the property
only passed to Bonifacio after he had fully
paid the purchase price on June 22, 1970,
more than 2 years after they contracted
marriage. Since the property was acquired
during the existence of the marriage, the
ownership is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership.
Sps. Tarrosa argument that the property lot
was Bonifacio’s exclusive property, since it
was registered solely in his name, has no
basis. The mere registration of the property
does not negate the conjugal nature of the
said property. What is material is the time
when the property was acquired.
The sale of Bonifacio of the property
belonging to the conjugal partnership
without the consent of Anita is void ab inito.
Thus, the sale of ½ of the conjugal property
without liquidation of the partnership is
void.

Naawan Community Rural Bank v CA and
Sps. Alfredo and Annabelle Lumo
Facts:
Guillermo Comayas offered to sell to the
Lumo Spouses a house and lot in
Camamanan, Cagayan de Oro City. The
property was already registered under the
torrens system that time and they made
appropriate inquires with the Register of
Deeds, respondents made inquiries and
found out that the property was already
mortgaged to certain Mrs. Galupo and that
the title of the subject lot was with her.
Respondents directed Comayas to redeem
the property to Mrs. Galupo at their
expense. And the release of adverse claim
was annotated in the title. Thereafter, they
executed an absolute Deed of Sale over the
subject property and registered the same.
However, it turns out that it was already
previously sold to Naawan Community Rural
Bank, it was the unregistered. The bank
foreclosed on the property, purchased the
same, and registered it under Act 3344.
Thus, the bank sought to eject the spouses.
However, the latter countered with an
action for quieting of title.
Issue: Whether or not private respondent
could be considered as buyers in good faith
Held: Yes
The priority in time principle being invoked
by petitioner bank is misplaced because its
registration referred to land not within the
torrens system but under Act 3344.
Before private respondents bought the
subject property from Guillermo Comayas,
inquiries were made with the Registry of
Deeds and the Bureau of Lands regarding the
status of the vendors title. No liens or
encumbrances were found to have been
annotated on the certificate of title. Neither
were private respondents aware of any
adverse claim or lien on the property other
than the adverse claim of a certain Geneva
Galupo to whom Guillermo Comayas had
mortgaged the subject property. But, as
already mentioned, the claim of Galupo was
eventually settled and the adverse claim
previously annotated on the title
cancelled. Thus, having made the necessary
inquiries, private respondents did not have
to go beyond the certificate of
title. Otherwise, the efficacy and
conclusiveness of the Torrens Certificate of
Title would be rendered futile and nugatory.
Considering therefore that private
respondents exercised the diligence
required by law in ascertaining the legal
status of the Torrens title of Guillermo
Comayas over the subject property and
found no flaws therein, they should be
considered as innocent purchasers for value
and in good faith.
Alfonso v Office of the President
Facts:
OCT No. 994 was issued by the Register of
Deeds of Rizal in the name of Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal pursuant to the December
3, 1912 decision.
In the meantime, the different lots of OCT
No. 994 were acquired by several persons
and/or entities, which led to the issuance of
several TCTs. One of which was issued to
private respondent Phil-Ville Development
and Housing Corporation (Phil-Ville).
On May 22, 1996, Rivera, one of the
substituted owners of OCT No. 994, filed for
partition and segregation of lots, praying
that the same be awarded in her favor. Upon
learning by Phil Ville, requested then LRA to
investigate the discrepancies in the date of
registration. Phil Ville maintained that the
issuance of 3 TCT in favor of Rivera was
highly irregular as they covered lots already
owned by Phil-Ville.
The LRA and DOJ on the petitioners’ failure
to require the presentation of subdivision
plan for Riveras 3 titles are in keeping in the
provision in PD No. 1529. PD No. 1529, that
for petitioner- register of deeds to issue a
new certificate, it is required to submit the
approved plan together with the technical
description.
Likewise, that petitioner should have
required proof of payment of inheritance tax
over the portions that were transferred to
Rivera because these lots were conveyance
from the estate of Vidal.
Issue: Whether or not it is the duty of the
Register of Deeds to require submission of
approved subdivision plan, technical
description & owner’s duplicate certificate
of title before issuing new titles.
Held:
SEC. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans.
— Any owner subdividing a tract of
registered land into lots which do not
constitute a subdivision project as defined
and provided for under P.D. 957, shall file
with the Commissioner of Land Registration
or with the Bureau of Lands a subdivision
plan of such land on which all boundaries,
streets, passageways and waterways, if any,
shall be distinctly and accurately
delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex,
duly approved by the Commissioner of Land
Registration or the Bureau of Lands together
with the approved technical descriptions
and the corresponding owner's duplicate
certificate of title is presented for
registration, the Register of Deeds shall,
without requiring further court approval of
said plan, register the same in accordance
with the provisions of the Land Registration
Act, as amended
SEC. 58. Procedure where conveyance
involves portion of land. — If a deed of
conveyance is for a part of the land
described in a certificate of title, the Register
of Deeds shall not enter any transfer
certificate of title to the grantee until a plan
of such land showing all the portions or lots
into which it has been subdivided and the
corresponding technical descriptions shall
have been verified and approved pursuant
to Section 50 of this Decree. . . .
Upon the approval of the plan and technical
descriptions, the original of the plan,
together with a certified copy of the
technical descriptions shall be filed with the
Register of Deeds for annotation in the
corresponding certificate of title and
thereupon said officer shall issue a new
certificate of title to the grantee for the
portion conveyed, and at the same time
cancel the grantor's certificate partially with
respect only to the said portion conveyed. .

It is clearly evident from the above

provisions that for petitioner- register of
deeds to issue a new certificate of title, she
must require the submission of the
approved subdivision plan together with the
approved technical descriptions and the
corresponding owner's duplicate certificate
of title. Therefore, she could not have
dispensed with the submission of the
subdivision plan and relied solely on the
technical descriptions provided in the court's
Order.

Likewise, this Court holds that petitioner

should have required proof of payment of
inheritance tax over the portions that were
transferred to Rivera because these lots
were conveyances from the estate of her
alleged grandmother, Maria Consolacion
Vidal, in whose name the lots were originally
registered under OCT No. 994.