INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS:

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V THE ACTING ROD OF NUEVA ECIJA

UDK 7671; JUNE 23, 1988
FACTS:
On June 13, 1980, DBP presented for registration before the ROD of Nueva Ecija, a sheriffs
certificate of sale in its favor for two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. NT-149033 and NT-149034,
both in the names of spouses Andres Bautista and Marcelina Calison. DBP acquired said property as
the highest bidder at an extrajudicial forclosure sale. The transaction was entered as ENTRY NO. 8191
in the Registrys Primary Entry Book (day book in PD 1529) and DBP paid the requisite registration fees
on the same day but annotation of the sale on the certificates of title could not be effected because the
originals of such certificates were missing from the Registry files. On the advice of the ROD, DBP
instituted reconstitution proceedings which was granted on June 15, 1982 but for some reason, the
certificates were only reconstituted on June 19, 1984.
DBP then sought to annotate on the reconstituted titles the certificate of sale as per ENTRY NO.
8191, a four year old entry, the acting ROD, unsure as to what to do, elevated the matter en consulta to
the Commissioner on Land Reg who held that the entry of four years ago was ineffective due to the
impossibility of accomplishing the registration because of the non-availability of the certificate of title
sought to be annotated. DBP went to CA who certified the case to the SC as a question purely of law.
ISSUE:
W/N entry into the day book is considered registration that attaches all legal effects even without
the annotation of the original certificate of titles.
RULING:
Sec. 56, PD 1529 refers to the Registers act of making a primary entry as a preliminary process
of registration and a consideration of its entire context provides that the instrument subject of a primary
entry shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted and at the very least, gives such entry
from the moment of its making the effect of putting the whole world on notice of the existence of the
instrument entered. Such effect clearly attaches to the mere making of the entry without regard to the
subsequent step of annotating a memorandum of the instrument subject of the entry on the certificate
of title to which it refers.
It is clear that the 4-year hiatus between the primary entry and the proposed annotation was not
DBPs making. Though it was under no necessity to present the owners duplicates of the certificates of
title affected for the purposes of primary entry since the transaction sought to be recorded was an
involuntary one and the record is silent as to whether it presented them or not, there is every probability
that it presented said owners duplicates as a matter of course in mortgages where usually the owners
duplicates of the encumbered titles are yielded into the custody of the mortgagee. The requisite
registration fees were already paid and the certificate of sale was registrable on its face, therefore DBP
has complied with all the requirements for purposes of both primary entry and the annotation of the
certificate of sale into the certificate of titles, only that said certificate of titles were missing in the
records of the Registry for no fault on the part of DBP.
(Guys, giapil nako kay basin ipa differentiate ni Sir.)
Earlier Rulings: Villasor v Camon clarified the ruling in Govt v Aballe where the Court held that,
although a notice of attachment has not been noted on the certificate of title, its notation in the book of
entry of the register of deeds produces all the effects which the law gives to its registration or inscription

 this is applicable in involuntary dealings. Basa v dela Rama, which is applicable to voluntary dealings,
held that the entry of an instrument in the primary entry book produces no legal effect unless a
memorandum thereof is noted on the certificate of title.
Later Rulings and Current Doctrine: In Levin v Bass, et.al. it was held that: In Voluntary registration
such as sale, mortgage, lease and the like, if the owners duplicate certificate could not be surrendered
and presented or if no payment of registration fees be made within 15 days, entry in the day book of the
deed of sale does not operate to convey and affect the land sold. In Involuntary registration such as
attachment, levy upon execution, lis pendens and the like, the entry thereof in the day book is a
sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. An innocent purchaser for value of registered land
becomes the registered owner and in contemplation of the law the holder of a certificate thereof the
moment he presents and files a duly notarized and lawful deed of sale and the same is entered on the
day book AND at the same time he surrenders or presents the owners duplicate certificate of title and
pays the full amount of registration fees, because what remains to be done lies not within his power to
perform but the ROD.
The Court set aside the resolution of the Acting Commissioner of Land Reg and ordered the
ROD to annotate the reconstituted titles based on the ENTRY NO. 8191. The ROD would only be
making a memorandum of an instrument based entirely on details which are already of indubitable
record and pursuant to the express command of the law, giving the same memorandum the same date
as the entry.