Title
Balbin vs. Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur
Case
G.R. No. L-20611
Decision Date
May 8, 1969
Petitioners sought to annotate a deed of donation for land with prior sales, but the Register of Deeds denied it due to missing co-owner’s duplicates. The Supreme Court upheld the denial, citing the Torrens system’s integrity, conjugal property concerns, and pending litigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20611)

Facts of the Case

On November 15, 1961, the petitioners presented to the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of OCT No. 548 along with a Deed of Donation inter vivos. In this deed, Cornelio Balbin donated an undivided two-thirds portion of the 11.2225 hectares of land covered by OCT No. 548 to the petitioners. The Register of Deeds denied the annotation request on the grounds that it was "legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law." The certificate already bore previous annotations reflecting three separate sales made by Cornelio Balbin of portions of the land to different buyers, which complicated the status of the donated property.

Prior Transactions and Legal Complications

The existing annotations on the title included the following sales:

  1. Entry No. 5658 - Sale to Florentino Gabayan for P400.00, covering 3.710 square meters.
  2. Entry No. 5659 - Sale to Roberto Bravo for P100.00, covering 16.713 square meters.
  3. Entry No. 5660 - Sale to Juana Gabayan for P400.00, covering 15.000 square meters.

Additionally, the title included a note about the issuance of duplicate certificates to these buyers, which were granted verbally by a Notary Public on January 5, 1956. This led to the Register of Deeds rejecting the petitioners' request to annotate the Deed of Donation, given that they had not presented the duplicate certificates owned by the original buyers.

Appeal to the Commissioner of Land Registration

Dissatisfied with the Register of Deeds' refusal, the petitioners escalated the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration. However, the Commissioner concurred with the Register’s decision, emphasizing that the donor, now a co-owner of the property, must present all existing owner’s duplicates to affect any changes in the recorded title. The Commissioner noted that such changes risked the integrity of the land registration system if made only on one copy of the title.

Legal Arguments and Rulings

The petitioners argued that under Section 55 of Act 496, the production of the owner's duplicate certificate should suffice for annotation to be permitted. They maintained that the existence of additional owner’s duplicates should not impede their request for registration of the deed, asserting that these duplicates were issued illegally. However, the court asserted that the existence of multiple duplicates presumes their legal issuance until a court declares otherwise, making it essential for all duplicates to be accounted for before any amendments could proceed.

Findings on Conjugal Property and Share Validity

The court also examined whether the property in question could be considered conjugal property, suggesting a need for liquidation of any partnership prior to such a donation. The court raised concerns that Cornelio Balbin’s donation exceeded his legal share in the property, noting that he had already sold undivided portions to other parties, thus

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.