1. Define and/or explain the following terms: 1.

) reconstitution of original certifcate of title; This denotes the restoration in its original form and condition of a lost or destoryed original or transfer certificate of title on file in the Office of the Register of Deeds. Its purpose is to have the title reproduced in exactly the same way it was at the time of its loss or destruction. 2.) notice of lis pendens; This is an announcment to the whole world that a particular real proerty is in litigation. The inscription is a warning that one who acquires an interest over litigated property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the property. 3.) adverse claim An adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Property Registration Decree, and serves as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with the property that someowne is claiming an interest on the same, or has a better property than the registered owner thereof. Basically, it is a notice to third persons that any transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to the outcome of the dispute. 4.) certificate of title A certificate of title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the Register of Deeds in the registry. It is a document which is the evidence of the title of the owner, bearing the presumption of regularity that all requisites for the issuance of a valid title had been complied with 2. May a forged deed of conveyance be the root of a valid title? As a general rule, the registration of forged deed is null and void and conveys no title to land. This rule, however is not absolute and for the exception to apply, three requirements must be complied with, to wit: First, that the COT was entrusted/delivered to the forger. Second, that the COT was already transferred from the name of the owner to the name of the forger. And Lastly, that the land was transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. The reason for this rule is that it is through the owners negligence in entrusting his COT that paved way for the commission of forgery. Also, an innocent purchaser for valus rights shall not be prejudiced, corollary to the principle of Mirror Doctrine. So, as between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of breach of trust, the one who made it possible, by his act of confidence, must bear the loss. 3.) In what instances may the State file an action for reversion of land grant to a person? By express provision of Section 118 of the Public Land Act, and in conformity with the policy of the law to preserve the land in the public land applicant and his family, any transfer or alienation of a free patent or homestead (except in favor of the Government or any of its branches or subdivisions) within five years from the issuance of the patent is proscribed. 4.) A, claiming to be an agent of P, alleged that the latter's owner's certificate of title was lost. A registered an affidavit of loss with the Register of Deeds. Then, A filed a petition for the replacement of the duplicate COT. The court granted the petition and a replacement copy of the duplicate COT was issued. All along, P is in possession of his owner's duplicate COT. A forged a deed of sale which he registered and he obtained a COT in his name. Then, A sold the property to D, who secured a new TCT in his name. P filed an action to nullify the title of D. Will the action of P prosper or not? The action of P will prosper since no valid sale may arise from that wherein a reconstituted title was in fact void. Where there is an earlier valid certificate of title in the name and in the possession of another person and the said title is existing, then the reconstituted titke and the order for its reconstitution does not become final because the court rendering the order has not acquired jurisdiction, as likweise held in Serra vs. CA. It may be attacked anytime. The duplicate certificate of title issued in the name of P by the A was void and had no effect and thus cannot be the subject of any valid conveyance, even to an innocent purchaser for value. 5.) M filed a civil action against P to recover possession of a parcel of land which is covered by a TCT issued in the name of M. In his answer, P raised the defense that the title of M is null and void. Did P raise a valid defense to Ms complaint? Explain. No, his defense is not valid. A certificate of title enjoys probative value. A person dealing with registered property, need not go beyond, but only has to rely on the title of his predecessor-in-interest. Since the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, it follows that there is nothing in the COT to indicate any cloud in the ownership of the property. More importantly, a certificate of title, once registered, cannot be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged or diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. The validity of the certificate of title can be thresged out only in a direct proceeding filed for the purpose. A Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally, as in the case at bar, by means of defense by P. The efficacy and intergrity of the Torrens System must be protected. 6.) On January 22, 2004, Bob obtained a P10M loan from Len. On March 21, 2004, Bob sold his registered land to Sonny for P10M but the owners duplicate COT was not delivered to Sonny. After the said loan remained unpaid at maturity, Len filed a collection suit against Bob. Sonny, who could not register the sale, also filed suit against Bob for specific performance. Leon and Sonny filed separately their respective petitions with the Register of Deeds to annotate the notices of lis pendens and also the TCT of Bob. Two distinct notices of lis pendens were annotated on the COT. Bob filed separate motions to cancel the notices. Resolve the two motions of Bob. A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled on either of the two grounds: First, if the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party and second, when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded. There being no reason to apply the first ground, the second may be of application. It is important that a specific propert is directly involved in the action and necessarily affected by the judgement.

Withh regards to Sonnys annotation, Bobs motion would not prosper. Sonnys suit for specific performance so that he could register the sale, falls under those kinds of proceedings which directly affects title to the land or the use or occupation thereof. However, the doctrine of lispendens has no application where the object of the suit is the recovery of a money judgment, or collection of debt (along with those cases of preliminary attachments, proceedings for the probate of wills, levies on executions and proceedings for the administration of estate of deceased persons). Thus, Bobs motion to cancel Lens annotation would prosper. 7.) In the suit filed by C against B, an order of attachment was issued and said lien was annotated on Bs TCT on February 8, 2005. On June 20, 2006, a writ of execution was issued against B based on the final and executory judgement rendered in another case in favor of X. The same property attached by C was levied on execution. In the execution sale held on August 30, 2007, X was adjudged as the purchaser. The Sheriffs Certificate of Sale in favor of X was registered. On June 10, 2008, C obtained a final and executory judgement in his case against B and in the auction sale of the land, B was declared as the highest bidder. Between B and X, who has a prior right over the land? In involuntary registration, the entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. The prior registration of the lien on Februarury 8, 2005 created by attachment thus operates to give notice upon third parties, particularly innocent purchasers for value that there exists an encumbrance on the land which was established to secure the satisfaction of a judgement. Thus, 8.) Mar constituted a real mortgage on his land in order to secure payment of his loan to Leo but the mortgage to Leo was not registered. Wesley filed an action for damages against Mar based on fraud. The court granted Wesleys application for a writ of attachment against Mar and the attachment lien was annotated on the COT covering the land mortgaged by Mar to Leo. Before he filed the case, Wesley learned from his friend that an unregistered mortgage on the same property was made by Mar in favor of Leo. Since he registered his attachment lien, Wesley claims preferential right over the property as against Leo who did not register the mortgage. Decide the case. The registration of a mortgage does not add to the validity of the mortgage, it only serves as notice to third persons. Where another party, such as the attachment creditor, has knowledge or a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him. Knowledge is equivalent to registration, thus Wesley is bound to respect the mortgage agreement between Mar and Leo. His subsequent lien is thus defeated by the prior interest held by Leo. 9.) Vic gave his owners duplicate COT to Fred for safekeeping. Fred forged Vics signature in a Deed of Sale. Registering said deed of sale, together with Vics owners duplicate COT of title, a new TCT was issued in the name of Fred. Possession of the land remained with Vic. The property was then sold by Fred to Greg who obtained a new TCT in his name. Vic discovered the forgery and filed an action against Greg. Will the action prosper or not? As a general rule, the registration of forged deed is null and void and conveys no title to land. This rule, however is not absolute and for the exception to apply, three requirements must be complied with, to wit: First, that the COT was entrusted/delivered to the forger. Second, that the COT was already transferred from the name of the owner to the name of the forger. And Lastly, that the land was transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. All of these elements concur in the case at bar. The reason for this rule is that it is through the owners negligence in entrusting his COT that paved way for the commission of forgery. So, as between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of breach of trust, the one who made it possible, by his act of confidence, must bear the loss. The action against Greg will prosper. 10.) Before migrating to the US, Ted and Ann entrusted to Atty. Luis all their legal documents covering their land in QC. Taking advantage of the couples absence, Atty. Luis forged a deed of sale, making it appear that he purchased said land from them. He caused the sale to be registered and a TCT was issued in his name in 2001. Atty Luis sold the property to Brad in 2002 and Brad was issued a TCT in his name. Brad built an apartment complex in said property. Upon their return to the Philippines in 2005, Ted and Ann discovered the fraud committed by Atty. Luis and they filed an action for reconveyance against Brad. Will the action prosper or not? Explain. Generally, the innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered ownder himself, and not by a forged deed. However, when the certificate of title was entrusted to a forger, who transfers it in his name and sells such to a bona fide purchaser, the forgery may be the basis of a valid title. The vendee then acquires the right of an innocent purchaser for value, corollary to the Mirror Doctrine. He has the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate of title and in the absence of anything to invite suspicion, he is not obligated to look beyond it and investigate the sellers title. This, the action against Brad, an innocent purchaser for value, will not prosper.