You are on page 1of 2

Register of Deeds vs. Acting register of deeds of Nueva Ecija.

Facts: On June 13, 1980, the Development Bank of the Philippines (hereafter, DBP) presented for
registration to the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan City, a sheriff's certificate of sale in its
favor of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. NT-149033 and NT-149034, both
in the names of the spouses Andres Bautista and Marcelina Calison, which said institution had acquired
as the highest bidder at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
DBP sought annotation on the reconstituted titles of the certificate of sale subject of Entry No. 8191 on
the basis of that same four-year-old entry. The Acting Register of Deeds, being in doubt of the proper
action to take on the solicitation, took the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration
by consulta raising two questions: (a) whether the certificate of sale could be registered using the old
Entry No. 8191 made in 1980 notwithstanding the fact that the original copies of the reconstituted
certificates of title were issued only on June 19, 1984; and (b) if the first query was answered affirmatively,
whether he could sign the proposed annotation, having assumed his duties only i n July 1982.
The resolution on the consulta held that Entry No. 8191 had been rendered "... ineffective due to the
impossibility of accomplishing registration at the time the document was entered because of the nonavailability of the certificate (sic) of title involved. For said certificate of sale to be admitted for
registration, there is a need for it to be re-entered now that the titles have been reconstituted upon
payment of new entry fees," and by-passed the second query as having been rendered moot and
academic by the answer to the first.
ISSUE: WON DBP needs to register anew.
HELD: No.
Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone produces the effect of registration, whether the
transaction entered is a voluntary or an involuntary one, so long as the registrant has complied with all
that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but
a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds.
Therefore, without necessarily holding that annotation of a primary entry on the original of the
certificate of title may be deferred indefinitely without prejudice to the legal effect of said entry, the
Court rules that in the particular situation here obtaining, annotation of the disputed entry on the
reconstituted originals of the certificates of title to which it refers is entirely proper and justified. To hold
said entry "ineffective," as does the appealed resolution, amounts to declaring that it did not, and does
not, protect the registrant (DBP) from claims arising, or transactions made, thereafter which are adverse
to or in derogation of the rights created or conveyed by the transaction thus entered. That, surely, is a
result that is neither just nor can, by any reasonable interpretation of Section 56 of PD 1529, be asserted
as warranted by its terms.

Bel Air Village Association, Inc. vs Virgilio Dionisio


G.R. L-383454 June 30, 1989
Facts:
The Transfer Certificate of Title covering the subject parcel of land issued in the name of Virgilio Dionisio,
the petitioner contains an annotation to the effect that the lot owner becomes an automatic member of
Bel-Air Village Association, the respondent, and must abide by such rules and regulations laid down by
the Association in the interest of the sanitation, security and the general welfare of the community.
The petitioner questioned the collection of the dues on the following grounds: the questioned
assessment is a property tax outside the corporate power of the association; the association has no
power to compel the petitioner to pay the assessment for lack of privity of contract; the questioned
assessment should not be enforced for being unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive, confiscatory and
discriminatory; the respondent association is exercising governmental powers which should not be
sanctioned.
Issue:
Whether or not the association can lawfully collect dues
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the purchasers of a registered
land are bound by the annotations found at the back of the certificate of title covering the subject parcel
of land. The petitioners contention that he has no privity with the respondent association is not
persuasive. When the petitioner voluntarily bought the subject parcel of land it was understood that he
took the same free of all ecumbrances except annotations at the back of the certificate of title, among
them, that he automatically becomes a member of the respondent association. One of the obligations of
a member is to pay certain amounts for the operation and activities of the association.
The mode of payment as well as the purposes for which the dues are intended clearly indicates that the
dues are not in the concept of a property tax as claimed by the petitioner. They are shares in the common
expenses for necessary services. A property tax is assessed according to the value of the property but the
basis of the sharing in this case is the area of the lot. The dues are fees which a member of the respondent
association is required in hiring security guards, cleaning and maintaining streets, street lights and other
community projects for the benefit of all residents within the Bel -Air Village. These expenses are
necessary, valid and reasonable for the particular community involved.
The limitations upon the ownership of the petitioner do not contravene provisions of laws, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy. The constitutional proscription than no person can be compelled
to be a member of an association against his will applies only to governmental acts and not to private
transactions like the one in question.
The petitioner cannot legally maintain that he is compelled to be a member of the association against his
will because the limitation is imposed upon his ownership of property. If he does not desire to comply
with the annotation or lien in question, he can at any time exercise his inviolable freedom of disposing of
the property and free himself from the burden of becoming a member of the association.

You might also like