Nature of a certificate of title

READ: CHAPTER IV, PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018 Ed., pp. 369-419.

RE-READ: pp. 329-347 (Innocent purchaser for value & Innocent mortgagee for value)
 

 What is the nature of a Certificate of Title?  READ: Sps. Mercader Jr. vs. Sps.
Bardilas, GR No. 163157, 27 June 2016.

The Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title in the

particular property described.

Preparation of certificate of title

PREPARATION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. READ: Sec. 39, supra.

Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the judgment directing

the registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, within fifteen days from
entry of judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall send,
within fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies of the judgment and of the
order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of
registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating that the decision has not been
amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has become final. Thereupon, the
Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree of registration as well as the
original and duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The original
certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of
registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and filed in the Land
Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title shall also be
signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate
certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated
for entry in his registration book.

What are the contents of a certificate of title? READ: Sec. 45, PD 1529

Section 45. Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate. Every certificate of

title shall set forth the full names of all persons whose interests make up the full
ownership in the whole land, including their civil status, and the names of their
respective spouses, if married, as well as their citizenship, residence and postal
address. If the property covered belongs to the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in
the names of both spouses.

How is an Original Certificate of Title entered? READ: Sec. 40, PD 1529

Upon receipt by the Register of Deeds of the original and duplicate copies of the original
certificate of title the same shall be entered in his record book and shall be numbered,
dated, signed and sealed by the Register of Deeds with the seal of his office

What are the contents of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title? READ: Sec. 41, PD
1529

Section 41. Owner's duplicate certificate of title. The owner's duplicate certificate of title

shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative. If two
or more persons are registered owners, one owner's duplicate certificate may be issued
for the whole land, or if the co-owners so desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to
each of them in like form, but all outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be
surrendered whenever the Register of Deeds shall register any subsequent voluntary
transaction affecting the whole land or part thereof or any interest therein. The Register
of Deeds shall note on each certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy thereof
was issued.

What are the contents of the Registration Book? READ: Sec. 42, PD 1529

Section 42. Registration Books. The original copy of the original certificate of title shall
be filed in the Registry of Deeds. The same shall be bound in consecutive order
together with similar certificates of title and shall constitute the registration book for titled
properties.

What is a Transfer Certificate of Title? How is it different from an Original Certificate of

Title? READ: Sec. 43, PD 1529

Section 43. Transfer Certificate of Title. The subsequent certificate of title that may be

issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant to any voluntary or involuntary instrument
relating to the same land shall be in like form, entitled "Transfer Certificate of Title", and
likewise issued in duplicate. The certificate shall show the number of the next previous
certificate covering the same land and also the fact that it was originally registered,
giving the record number, the number of the original certificate of title, and the volume
and page of the registration book in which the latter is found.

Where several certificates cover

the same land: Rules
Several certificates covering the same land.
Where 2 or more certificates cover the same land, which certificate will prevail? The
correct answer is the general rule.  READ: Iglesia ni Kristo v. CFI, G.R. No. L-35273, 25
July 1983, 208 Phil 441.

we follow the general rule that where two certificates of title are issued to different
persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier date must prevail as
between the original parties, and in case of successive registration where more than
one certificate is issued over the land, the person holding under the prior certificate is
entitled to the land as against the person who relies on the second certificate.

Are there exceptions?

 What kinds of anomalies and irregularities in the issuance of the Torrens title will
justify disregarding the general rule? READ: Mathay v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
15788, 17 September 1998;
 "a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land
had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in
existence." [example:  their supposed title originated from a spurious title of
Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay illegally registered on February 28, 1980.]
 where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, to
two different persons, for the same parcel of land, even if both are presumed to
be title holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the
earlier title should prevail. 
 o What kind of mistake?  READ: Legarda v Saleeby, GR No. 8936, 3 October
1915, 31 Phil. 590;

 "if it can be very clearly ascertained by the ordinary rules of construction relating
to written documents, that the inclusion of the land in the certificate of title of
prior date is a mistake, the mistake may be rectified by holding the latter of the
two certificates of title to be conclusive."

o What kind of fraudulent registration, READ: Carpo v Ayala Land, GR No.

166577, 3 February 2010, 611 SCRA 436.

 Co-owned land

 May a co-owner convey a physical portion of the land owned in common? READ:
Lopez v. Ilustre, GR No. L-14429, 30 June 1962, 5 Phil 567

What a co-owner may dispose of under Article 493 is only his undivided aliquot share, which
shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him upon the termination of the co-
ownership. He has no right to divide the property into parts and then convey one part by metes
and bounds.

 Must all co-owner’s duplicates be surrendered? READ: Balbin vs. RD, 28 SCRA 12

ONLY ONE DUPLICATE COPY OF TITLE IS SURRENDERED. — Section 55 of Act 496

obviously assumes that there is only one duplicate copy of the title in question, namely,
that of the registered owner himself, such that its production whenever a voluntary
instrument is presented constitutes sufficient authority from him for the register of
deeds to make the corresponding memorandum of registration.

Differentiate a defective title vs. an unblemished title. READ: Lorenzana vs. CA, 231
SCRA 713
What is the rule on overlapping titles? READ: Cambridge Realty and Resources Corp. vs.
Eridanus Development Inc., GR No. 152445, 4 July 2008.

In overlapping of titles disputes, it has always been the practice for

the court to appoint a surveyor from the government land agencies
- the Land Registration Authority or the DENR - to act as
commissioner.  - to conduct an extensive investigation of the titles
of the parties.

 The case of overlapping of titles necessitates the assistance of

experts in the field of geodetic engineering. The very reason
why commissioners were appointed by the trial court, upon
agreement of the parties, was precisely to make an evaluation
and analysis of the titles in conflict with each other. Given their
background, expertise and experience, these commissioners are
in a better position to determine which of the titles is valid.
Thus, the trial court may rely on their findings and conclusions

Effect of the issuance of title

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TORRENS TITLE?

 What is the rationale of the rule that a certificate of title cannot be used to
protect a usurper from the true owner or used to perpetuate fraud? READ:
Pagaduan vs. Ocuma, GR No. 176308, 8 May 2009.

Despite a host of jurisprudence that states a certificate of title is indefeasible, unassailable and
binding against the whole world, it merely confirms or records title already existing and vested,
and it cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used for the
perpetration of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.

 Why is a Torrens title conclusive evidence of ownership?READ: Ching vs. CA,

181 SCRA 9;

A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein
(Section 49, Act 496). A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and
that they are valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any "information possessoria" or title
 existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title

 Why is a Torrens title presumed valid?  READ: Dela Cruz vs. CA, 298 SCRA 172;
Cabrera vs. CA, 267 SCRA 339; Avila vs. Tapucar, 201 SCRA 148.

 What are the facts that a certificate of title is conclusive on ?

o (a) the ownership of the registrant. READ: Tan vs. Bantegui, GR No.
154027, 24 October 2005;
o (b) the identity of the land. READ: Demasiado vs. Velasco, 71 SCRA 105;
and
o (c) its location. READ: Odsigue vs. CA, 233 SCRA 626
 What are the general incidents of registered land? READ: Sec. 46, PD 1529;
Budlong vs. Pondoc, 79 SCRA 24

Attributes of a certificate of title

What are the ATTRIBUTES of a certificate of title?
 
(1)IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. READ: Sec. 47, PD 1529; Fundamental principle in land
registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein
(READ: Cana vs. Evangelical Free Church, GR No. 157573, 11 February 2008, 544 SCRA
225 (2008);READ ALSO: Natalia Realty Corp. vs. Valdez, 173 SCRA 534; Protection is
only in favor of registered owners (READ: Alzonava vs Capunitan, 4 SCRA 450) AND his
heirs (READ: Barcelona vs. Barcelona, 100 Phil 251); BUT - ownership may be lost
through LACHES (READ: Lucas vs. GAMPONIA, 100 Phil 277); Right to recover
possession is imprescriptible  (READ: JM Tuason vs. CA, 93 SCRA 146); When is laches
unavailing)? READ: Dablo vs. CA, 226 SCRA 618.
 

Dablo vs. CA, 226 SCRA 618.

  An action by the registered owner to recover possession based on a Torrens title is not barred
by laches.
(2)INDEFEASIBLE & INCONTROVERTIBLE. READ: Melgar vs. Pagayon, 21 SCRA 841; A
Torrens title over a property is evidence of ownership. It is a fundamental principle in
land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.
It is an age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof. READ: Cana vs. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines. GR No.
157573, 11 February 2008 (544 SCRA 225); Consequence of indefeasibility. READ:
Acedo vs. CA, 33 SCRA 936; 

What are the instances when the defense of indefeasibility is NOT available? 
a) The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply where fraud attended
the issuance of the title. The Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud. As such, a
title issued based on void documents does not run against the State and its subdivisions.
READ: Eagle Realty Corporation vs. Republic, GR No. 151424, 24 July 2008;
b) Principle of indefeasibility does not apply when the patent and the title based thereon
are null and void. The Director of Lands had no authority to grant a free patent over
privately owned land. Although OCT No. P-30187 was merely collaterally attacked, it
was still correctly nullified because the free patent on which it was based was null and
void. READ: De Guzman vs. Agbagala, GR No. 163566, 19 February 2008, 546 SCRA
278 (2008);
c) Purchase from one who procured title by FRAUD. READ: Bornales vs. IAC, 166 SCRA
512; BUT NOTE! A title procured by fraud or misrepresentation can still be the source of
a completely legal and valid title if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value. READ: Heirs of Tiro vs. PES, GR No. 170528, 26 August 2008, 563 SCRA 309
(2008); 
d) Land covered by previous valid title. READ: RD vs. PNB, 13 SCRA 793; 
e) Patent and Certificate issued over private land. READ: Agne vs. Director of Lands, 181
SCRA 46;
f) A certificate of title issued on the basis of a free patent procured through fraud or in
violation of the law may be cancelled since such title is not cloaked with indefeasibility.
READ: Martinez vs. CA, GR No. 170409, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA 604 (2008);
g) Illegally included area. READ: Caragay-Layno vs. CA, 132 SCRA 718; (8) The rule on
incontrovertibility and indefeasibility is equally applicable to title acquired through
homestead or free patents. READ: Iglesia vs. CFI of NE, 208 Phil 441.
 
(3)NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK. READ: Sec. 48, PD 1529; READ: The
Doctrine of non-collateral attack of a decree or title, 7 SCRA 504; A certificate of title
cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or cancelled only in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law. READ: Heirs of Sps. Lim vs. RTC Judge, GR
No. 173891, 8 September 2008 (564 SCRA 352);READ ALSO:Tapuroc vs. Loquellano,
GR No. 152007, 22 January 22, 2007; Natalia Realty vs. Valdez, 173 SCRA 534; Widows
and Orphans Association vs. CA, 201 SCRA 165; Cancellation of title to be filed in the
same court where decree was entered. READ: Estanislao vs. Honrada, 114 SCRA 748;
BUT: A void title is subject to collateral attack. READ: Ferrer vs. Bautista, 231 SCRA 748;
 
(4)QUIETS TITLE. READ: Sec. 31, PD 1529; National Grains Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA
380

The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such exceptions
or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the
National Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application or
notice, the same being included in the general description "To all whom it may concern".

 "The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any
question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casato," avoid the
possibility of losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not allowed

Imprescriptible
Consider the following problems:
(Note: These and the subsequent problems/questions are for your review and research.
No need to answer them in the module. Fair warning though: these questions may be
asked during the midterm exam/quiz  so please form an intelligent legal opinion.)
(1)Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of Verde Sports Center  
Corporation  (Verde) a   10-hectare   property belonging to their conjugal partnership.
The sale was made without Winda’s knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda
learned of the sale when she discovered the deed of sale among the documents in her
husband’s vault after his demise. Soon after, she noticed that the construction of the
sports complex had started. Upon completion of the construction in 1952, she tried but
failed to get free membership privileges in Verde.
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment of the sale on the ground that
she did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde contends that, in accordance with the
Spanish Civil Code which was then in force, the sale in 1948 of the property did not
need her concurrence. Verde contends that in any case the action has prescribed or is
barred by laches. Winda argues that her Torrens title covering the property is
indefeasible, and imprescriptible.
a. Define or explain the term “laches”.
b. Comment on Winda's argument that her Torrens title is imprescriptible.
 
(2) In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of registered land evidenced by a duly
executed deed of sale. The owner presented the deed of sale and the owner’s certificate
of title to  the  Register  of  Deeds.  The  entry  was  made  in  the daybook and
corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by official receipt. However, no transfer of
certificate of title was issued to Renren because the original certificate of title in Robyn’s
name was temporarily misplaced after fire partly gutted the Office of the Register of
Deeds. Meanwhile, the land   had   been   possessed   by   Robyn’s   distant   cousin,
Mikaelo, openly, adversely and continuously in the concept of owner since 1960. It was
only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to recover possession. Mikaelo invoked a)
acquisitive prescription and b) laches, asking that he be declared owner of the land.
Decide the case by evaluating these defenses.

Indefeasible & Incontrovertible

Consider the following question:
 
Is the principle of indefeasibility applicable to a certificate of title issued pursuant to a
public land patent? Explain.

Not subject to collateral attack

Consider the following problem:
 
Plaintiff NATALIA REALTY CORP. filed against defendants five civil cases alleging that
the latter unlawfully occupied portions of the parcels of land registered in its name. It
prayed that defendants be ordered to vacate the same and to pay the reasonable
compensation for their occupation. Defendants sought the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction, relying on two grounds: (1) the alleged invalidity of the
titles of the plaintiff; and (2) defendants’ supposed acquisition of the properties by
adverse possession. Rule on the two issues.
1. the certificates of title issued in the name of the plaintiff in accordance with the Land
 Registration Act (Act No. 496) is indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry
of the decree of registration. Under Section 38 thereof, a petition for review of the decree
must be presented within one year after its entry as described and defined in Section 40 of
the same. After the lapse of one year, the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible
and is binding upon and conclusive against all persons whether or not they were notified of
or participated in the registration proceedings.  The certificates of title of appellee corporation
were issued more than thirty years ago: Title No. 31527 was issued on September 11, 1953,
while Title No. 31528 (now N-67845) was issued on February 19, 1952,

Even assuming arguendo that said titles may still be challenged, the present case does not provide
the vehicle for that remedy since the judicial action required is a direct, and not a collateral, attack. 
In fact, under the existing law, Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree expressly provides
that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or
cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

2. Appellants' claim of acquisitive prescription is likewise baseless. Under Article 1126 of the
Civil Code, prescription of ownership of lands registered under the Land Registration Act
shall be governed by special laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496 provides that no title to
registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by adverse
possession. 

Consequently, proof of possession by the defendants is both immaterial and inconsequential.

There is nothing either in Presidential Decree No. 2 which may be said to justify appellants' claim
that said decree granted the ownership of said lands to them and their successors by title. 
Apparently, appellants were misled or induced to believe that they acquired the parcels of land in
question when the whole country was declared by the previous regime as a land reform area.

Quiets title
Consider the following:  [G.R. No. 156357             February 18, 2005

ENGR. GABRIEL V. LEYSON, DR. JOSEFINA L. POBLETE, FE LEYSON QUA, CARIDAD V.

LEYSON and ESPERANZA V. LEYSON, petitioners,
vs.
NACIANSINO BONTUYAN and MAURECIA B. BONTUYAN]

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant for quieting of title and damages. They
alleged that upon their return from the United States, they found that the property in
question was occupied and cultivated by the tenants of defendant who could not
produce any document evidencing defendant’s ownership. In his answer, defendant
averred, by way of affirmative defense that the lots in question were portions of a parcel
of land owned by Calixto Gabud which were eventually sold to him through a series of
intermediary transfers. He interposed a counterclaim that Gregorio Bontuyan, plaintiff’s
predecessor obtained his title to the property through fraud. Defendant prayed that the
complaint be dismissed, that he be declared the owner of the property, and that the title
of Bontuyan be canceled. Plaintiffs countered that defendant’s counterclaim constituted
a collateral attack on the title of Bontuyan and the titles emanating therefrom. Are the
plaintiffs correct? Explain.

Yes. An attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the
proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. Such action to attack a certificate of title
47 

may be an original action or a counterclaim in which a certificate of title is assailed as void. A

counterclaim is considered a new suit in which the defendant is the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the
complaint becomes the defendant. It stands on the same footing and is to be tested by the same
rules as if it were an independent action.

Statutory liens
WHAT ARE THE STATUTORY LIENS AFFECTING TITLE? READ: PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018
Ed., pp. 385-395. MEMORIZE: Sec. 44, PD 1529.
 
General Rule: Every registered owner receives and holds the certificate free from all
encumbrances. READ: SM Prime Holdings vs. Madayag, GR No. 164687, 12 February
2009, 578 SCRA 552.
Exceptions: (a) those noted on the certificate and (b) those enumerated by law.

 Is Section 44, PD 1529 an exclusive enumeration? READ: Roxas v Tagaytay City,

GR No. L-13333, 24 November 1959, 106 Phil. 512.
o Section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 is a “statutory lien affecting
title” of the registered land even if not annotated at the back of the certificate.
Hence, alienable lands of the public domain held by government entities
CANNOT, under Section 60, CA 141 - be alienated or encumbered unless
CONGRESS passes a law authorizing their disposition. READ: Chavez v. Public
Estates Authority, GR No. 133250, 9 July 2002, 384 SCRA 152.
 Other exceptions: READ: Section 46, PD 1529
o Rights incident to husband and wife
 Presumption: Under the Family Code, all property acquired during
the marriage are presumed to belong to the Absolute Community of Property.
SEE: Domingo v Reed, GR No. 157701, 9 December 2005, 477 SCRA 227;
Under the old Civil Code, all properties acquired during the marriage are
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. READ: De Leon v. De Leon,
GR No. 185063, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 768.
  Exception: Where the title is in the name of only one spouse and
the rights of innocent third parties are involved.


o Rights incident to landlord and tenant
o Liability to attachment and execution
o Liability to any lien of any description established by law on land and
buildings thereon or on the interest of the owner on such lands and buildings
o Rights incident to the laws on descent
o Rights incident to the laws on partition between co-owners
o Taking of the property through eminent domain
o Right to relieve such land from liability to be recovered by an assignee in
insolvency of trustee in bankruptcy under the laws relative to preferences
o Rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land

 
Is a certificate of title subject to servitudes? Is there an exception? READ: Digran vs.
Auditor General, 64 OG 19, p. 4512
What are “liens” (charges) and “encumbrances” (burden)? READ: Any LAW Dictionary

LIEN – a charge on property usually for the pavement of some debt or obligation; a
qualified right or proprietary interest, which may be exercised over the property of
another
ENCUMBRANCE – burden upon land, depreciative of its value, such as a lien, easement,
or servitude, which, though adverse to the interest of the landowner, does not conflict
with his conveyance of the land in fee.

 Identify whether the following are liens OR encumbrances:

o
 Mortgage? – encumbrance
 Judgment? – encumbrance
 Lease? – encumbrance
 Security interest? – encumbrance
 Easement of right of way? – encumbrance
 Accrued and unpaid taxes? – encumbrance
 Is adverse possession by another an encumbrance? READ: Ozaeta vs. Palanca, 63
OG 36, p. 7675
 Does a notice of lis pendens establish a lien?
 o Annotations on TCT No. PT-10597 bound the petitioner but not to the
extent that rendered the petitioner liable for the non-performance of the
covenants stipulated in the Deed of Sale; what are “annotations”?; purpose.
READ: ASB Realty Corporation vs. Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership, G.R.
No. 202947, 9 December 2015.

 
Consider the following problem:
Maria  Enriquez  failed  to  pay  the  realty  taxes  on  her unregistered agricultural land
located in Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to satisfy the taxes due, the City sold it at
public auction to Juan Miranda, an employee at the Treasurer’s Office of said City,
whose bid at P10,000.00 was the highest. In due time, a final bill of sale was executed in
his favor.
 Maria refused to turn-over the possession of the property to Juan alleging that (1) she
had been, in the meantime, granted a free patent and on the basis thereof an Original
Certificate of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in favor of Juan is void from the
beginning in view of the provision in the Administrative Code of 1987 which prohibits
officers and employees of the government from purchasing directly or indirectly any
property sold by the government for nonpayment of any tax, fee or other public charge.
 
(a)  Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect of the Issuance of the Certificate of
Title to Maria?
(b)  If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10,000.00? If not, why not?
(c)    If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate to divert Maria of her ownership?
If it did, who then is the owner of the property?

Restrictive covenants that run with

the land
What are restrictive covenants? READ: Fajardo vs. Freedom to Build. GR No. 134692, 1
August 2000.
Restrictive covenants are not, strictly speaking, synonymous with easements. While it
may be correct to state that restrictive covenants on the use of land or the location or
character of buildings or other structures thereon may broadly be said to create
easements or rights, it can also be contended that such covenants, being limitations on
the manner in which one may use his own property,6 do not result in true
easements,7 but a case of servitudes (burden), sometimes characterized to be negative
easements or reciprocal negative easements. Negative easement is the most common
easement created by covenant or agreement whose effect is to preclude the owner of
the land from doing an act, which, if no easement existed, he would be entitled to do.8

Courts which generally view restrictive covenants with disfavor for being a restriction on
the use of one's property, have, nevertheless, sustained them9 where the covenants are
reasonable,10 not contrary to public policy,11 or to law,12 and not in restraint of
trade.13 Subject to these limitations, courts enforce restrictions to the same extent that
will lend judicial sanction to any other valid contractual relationship.14 In general,
frontline restrictions on constructions have been held to be valid stipulations.15

The provisions in a restrictive covenant prescribing the type of the building to be erected
are crafted not solely for the purpose of creating easements, generally of light and view,
nor as a restriction as to the type of construction,16 but may also be aimed as a check on
the subsequent uses of the building17 conformably with what the developer originally
might have intended the stipulations to be. In its Memorandum, respondent states in
arguing for the validity of the restrictive covenant that the -

"x x x restrictions are not without specific purpose. In a low cost-socialized housing, it is
of public knowledge that owners-developers are constrained to build as many number of
houses on a limited land area precisely to accommodate marginalized lot buyers,
providing as much as possible the safety, aesthetic and decent living condition by
controlling overcrowding. Such project has been designed to accommodate at least 100
families per hectare

Splitting or consolidation of
title/Subdivision & Consolidation
Plans
 SPLITTING OR CONSOLIDATION OF TITLE. READ: Sec. 49. PD 1529

Section 49. Splitting, or consolidation of titles. A registered owner of several distinct parcels of land
embraced in and covered by a certificate of title desiring in lieu thereof separate certificates, each
containing one or more parcels, may file a written request for that purpose with the Register of
Deeds concerned, and the latter, upon the surrender of the owner's duplicate, shall cancel it together
with its original and issue in lieu thereof separate certificates as desired. A registered owner of
several distinct parcels of land covered by separate certificates of title desiring to have in lieu thereof
a single certificate for the whole land, or several certificates for the different parcels thereof, may
also file a written request with the Register of Deeds concerned, and the latter, upon the surrender of
the owner's duplicates, shall cancel them together with their originals, and issue in lieu thereof one
or separate certificates as desired.

 SUBDIVISION AND CONSOLIDATION PLANS. READ: Sec. 50. PD 1529

o Simple Subdivisions. READ: Sec. 50, PD 1529
o Complex Subdivisions. READ: PD 957
 Section 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. Any owner subdividing a tract
of registered land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision project has
defined and provided for under P.D. No. 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: Provided, however, that
the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the new certificate of title covering the
street, passageway or open space, a memorandum to the effect that except by
way of donation in favor of the national government, province, city or
municipality, no portion of any street, passageway, waterway or open space so
delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered
owner without the approval of the Court of First Instance of the province or city in
which the land is situated.
 A registered owner desiring to consolidate several lots into one or more, requiring
new technical descriptions, shall file with the Land Registration Commission, a
consolidation plan on which shall be shown the lots to be affected, as they were
before, and as they will appear after the consolidation. Upon the surrender of the
owner's duplicate certificates and the receipt of consolidation plan duty approved
by the Commission, the Register of Deeds concerned shall cancel the
corresponding certificates of title and issue a new one for the consolidated lots.
 The Commission may not order or cause any change, modification, or
amendment in the contents of any certificate of title, or of any decree or plan,
including the technical description therein, covering any real property registered
under the Torrens system, nor order the cancellation of the said certificate of title
and the issuance of a new one which would result in the enlargement of the area
covered by the certificate of title.