This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-02-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that for the registration of voluntary instruments (e.g., deed of sale or contract of lease), it is necessary not only to register the deed, instrument of assignment, mortgage or lease in the entry book of the register of deeds but also for the Register of Deeds to annotate a memorandum thereof on the owner's duplicate certificate and its original.[14] In voluntary registration, if the owner's duplicate certificate is not surrendered and presented or if no payment of registration fees is made within fifteen days, entry in the day book will not convey or affect the land sold, mortgaged or leased.[15] | |||||
|
2004-09-08 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Second. Petitioners contend that the aforecited case of DBP is not apropos to the case at bar. Allegedly, in DBP, the bank not only paid the registration fees but also presented the owner's duplicate certificate of title. We find no merit in petitioners' posture. They fail to consider the voluntary or involuntary nature of the instrument subject of registration. A voluntary instrument is a willful act of the registered owner of the land to be affected by registration,[33] while an involuntary instrument is one pertaining to a transaction affecting lands in which the registered owner's cooperation is not needed and which transaction may even be done against his will.[34] For the registration of a voluntary instrument, it is necessary not only to register the deed, instrument or assignment, mortgage, or lease in the entry book of the register of deeds, but a memorandum thereof must also be made on the owner's duplicate and on its original. The mere entry by the register of deeds in the entry or diary book, without the presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate of title for corresponding annotation of the conveyance, does not have the effect of a conveyance of the property.[35] On the other hand, for the registration of an involuntary instrument, the law does not require the presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate of title and considers the annotation of such instrument upon the entry book, as sufficient to affect the real estate to which it relates.[36] The reason for the difference is obvious. In a voluntary instrument, the registered owner of the land to be affected by registration is presumed to be interested in registering the instrument and would willingly surrender, present or produce his duplicate certificate of title to the register of deeds in order to accomplish such registration. On the other hand, as the registration of an involuntary instrument is contrary to the interest of the registered owner or will affect him adversely, it is but natural that he will not willingly present or produce his duplicate certificate or at least delay the production as long as possible.[37] | |||||