The importance of safekeeping your property’s certificate of title

As Filipinos, we know all too well the significance of land and real property ownership. This goes beyond mere legal possession, as land ownership is deeply ingrained in our cultural, social, and economic fabric. Rooted in history, tradition, and practicality, Filipinos attach immense importance to their land and real property.

Land and property ownership is often viewed as a means of economic empowerment and security. It can provide a stable foundation for families, offering a source of income through agriculture, rental properties, or potential development.

Since Filipinos value family closeness and relations, land ownership is also seen as a form of tangible wealth that can be passed on to future generations, ensuring their financial stability and opportunities for growth. This is why our Real Estate brokers often include in their sales pitch that buying an expensive property would be well worth it because it would be a “legacy” that the buyer can leave for their children and loved ones.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of tricksters, fraudsters, and forgers that plot and attempt to take our property from us. These people may not think twice about forging signatures and consents in deeds of sales, in order to take and/or transfer properties from legitimate owners to themselves.

In this article, we shall discuss why property owners must ensure the safekeeping of their certificates of title, because if this should fall into the wrong hands, they could lose their property and even be barred from recovering it, regardless of the fact that they never consented to its sale or transfer, and notwithstanding that they were the victims of forgery or fraud committed by others.

A forged deed is void and transfers no title

A forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title, for it is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have. This means that one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.  (Tolentino v. Latagan, G.R. no. 179874, June 22, 2015)

The Supreme Court has declared that all subsequent certificates of title arising from the forged deed of sale are also void because of the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its source. (Heirs of Arao, et al. vs. heirs of Eclipse, et. al., G.R. No. 211425, Nov 19, 2018)

Exception

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court has ruled that as an exception, the law protects the innocent purchaser who acquires the property from the forger in good faith and for valuable consideration.

Where innocent third parties, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title, acquires the rights over the property – the courts cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. An outright cancellation would impair the public confidence in the certificate of title and would in effect require anyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. And this would be contrary to the very purpose of the law.

Therefore, an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value of registered land, holds an indefeasible title under the Torrens system. (Aguirre vs. Bombaes, G.R. No. 233681, Feb 3, 2023)

The remedy of the victim-owner

This does not mean, however, that the victim-landowner is without any recourse, as public policy dictates that those unjustly deprived of their rights over real property must be afforded legal remedies.  The victim-landowner may opt to file an action for compensation from the Assurance Fund under Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree.

Note that it does not give the property back to the original victim-owner, but only allows the victimized owner to file a claim with the Assurance Fund as provided for under PD 1529. The victim-landowner may also file a case to claim damages against the forger or the person whose fraudulent act resulted in the loss of the property.

What is an innocent purchaser for value

Notably, an innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price for the property. On the other hand, a buyer is not an innocent purchaser if it has actual knowledge of a defect or lack of title of the seller of the property, which would reasonably give rise to suspicion, or one who fails to inquire or take the necessary steps to ensure that there was no cloud on the title, right or ownership of the property. (Aguirre vs. Bombaes, G.R. No. 233681, Feb 3, 2023)

The certificate of title

Given that an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value of a property may rely on the face of the certificate of title without inquiring further, it is important to emphasize the importance and significance of a certificate of title.

As it is settled that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title, when a certificate of title is clean and free from any defect, encumbrance or claim, a potential buyer has every right to rely on the correctness of the certificate in making its purchase of real property. (Aguirre vs. Bombaes, G.R. No. 233681, Feb 3, 2023)

This very same certificate of title is also a critical and essential document that would allow the forger of the deed of sale to transfer the property to their name, as the presentation and submission of the owner’s duplicate original transfer certificate of title is necessary to transfer title over a property to another.

It is important for property owners to know that the Property Registration Decree provides that no voluntary instrument, such as a deed of donation or deed of absolute sale, shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner’s duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument.

The production of the owner’s duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be taken as conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument. The result is that a new certificate or memorandum issued by the Register of Deeds shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under them, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.

The Supreme Court reiterated that failure to comply with the registration requirements of the Torrens system, for example the presentation of the owner’s original certificate of title, averts the registration process. This failure to present and surrender the certificate of title effectively prevents the transaction from affecting the land subject of the registration.

More importantly, a certificate of title issued by the Register of Deeds without the prior presentation and cancellation of the existing owner’s duplicate title does not bind the property to which it pertains and the title issued does not produce the effects of a valid title. It is literally a scrap of paper. (Gatmaytan, et al. v. Misibis Land, Inc., G.R. No. 222166, June 10, 2020)

This is why we urge all property owners to diligently secure the certificates of title to their properties, keeping them safely in your possession or, if needed, entrusting them only to someone who is truly deserving your trust and confidence.

Source: Inquirer

Crisis of confidence

The construction and real estate industries are major contributors to economic growth. Businessmen say thousands of jobs in these industries are currently as frozen as the assets of controversial contractors and public works officials.

Approvals for collecting payments from government agencies have also become more complicated, with the required signatures tripling or even quadrupling. This time, the businessmen say the red tape is meant not to collect grease money or “facilitation fees,” but to spread culpability or broaden deniability in case a project is deemed to be anomalous by probers.

The real property sector had already taken a hit from the property bubble created by the proliferation – and then the abrupt shutdown – of Philippine offshore gaming operators.  

Now the construction sector and its downstream industries are reportedly being battered. The corruption scandal has spread to substandard, overpriced or non-existent farm-to-market roads, schools and hospitals.

This week, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Francis Lim lamented in a speech that the “crisis of confidence” arising from the corruption scandal has wiped out an eye-watering P1.7 trillion in market value from the stock market. Lim described corruption as a “weapon of mass wealth destruction.”

Presidential investment and economics adviser Frederick Go clarified that the P1.7 trillion was based on sensationalized “fake news” posted on social media, although there has been a slide on a much smaller scale in the stock market in recent weeks.

Regardless of the actual amount of market value losses, the scandal is turning the country into Asia’s basket case. Not only because of the staggering extent of the corruption now being uncovered, but also because of perceptions that after all the hue and cry, there will only be token punishments. The big fish will get a slap on the wrist and everything will return to business as usual.

            *

Surely there are honest, competent folks who are in government not to rob the nation but to serve the people and the greater good. But for now, they are being tainted by too many rotten eggs at all levels of government.

Are we a nation of thieves? We’re seeing the impact of this perception in that incident reported by One News’ Gretchen Ho, whose mother was humiliated when a foreign exchange dealer at the airport in Oslo, Norway, upon seeing the Philippine passport, refused to accept her 300 US dollars for currency conversion for fear that it was dirty money being laundered.

The currency dealer reportedly acted on an advisory that had not yet been updated: the inclusion of the Philippines in the gray list of countries under closer monitoring for money laundering by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force.

The FATF took the Philippines out of the gray list last February; the European Union did the same only in August. The currency dealer in Norway – a non-EU state that is part of the Schengen visa zone – still had the old FATF alert, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

We might yet be returned to the gray list, if the FATF would take a closer look at our election campaign system and consider the ongoing corruption scandal.

Being flagged for dirty money at currency exchanges abroad is just one of the hassles Filipinos go through because of weak governance and development woes.

A nation’s standing in the international community is reflected in the strength of passports. Singaporeans, who hold the world’s strongest passport as per the Henley Passport Index for 2025, can enter 192 out of 227 global travel destinations visa-free; the second-ranked South Koreans, 190, and the third-ranked Japanese, 189.

Filipinos, ranked 74th, are visa-free only in 64 destinations. When applying for a Schengen visa, we must submit not only an originally issued birth certificate, income tax return and certificate of employment, but also bank statements with transaction records covering six to eight months depending on the Schengen Area state issuing the visa.

Those are humiliating requirements that I suspect are meant to ensure that the applicant is no hampaslupa planning to become a TNT living off welfare or refugee applicant status within the Schengen zone. But the stringent requirements can’t prevent all the obscenely wealthy Pinoy money launderers from entering Europe, buying up properties and regularly depositing their loot in Switzerland.

            *

The robbers in our country would have scoffed at money laundering involving such a miniscule amount; $300 would buy only one Hermes handkerchief. But that Norway incident deserves attention, because the millions of Filipinos working overseas could suffer the same humiliation.

One answer is to show a resolute response to the corruption problem. China has executed several former officials for corruption, with another ex-minister currently on two-year suspended death sentence. South Korea has sent several former presidents to prison for graft.

We abolished capital punishment. But we can present to the world a swift and credible probe, with full transparency, accompanied by structural reforms to rebuild damaged institutions rather than just patch them up like Humpty Dumpty, and of course the speedy prosecution and punishment of the guilty.

It’s unfortunate that the Independent Commission for Infrastructure has steadfastly refused to open even part of its hearings to the public, preferring instead to conduct its probe like the Supreme Court, to which the ICI chair used to belong. The Philippine judiciary is not known for integrity; it warranted special mention even in the US State Department’s latest country assessments for corruption.

The impression is that it’s just business as usual in dribbling justice, with VIPs mollycoddled. So far the ICI has questioned the Discayas, former Senate finance committee chair Grace Poe and former public works chief Mark Villar. What these key players told the ICI is left to conjecture, fueling suspicions of hush-hush arrangements.

It seems the ICI tack is to wear out those demanding open hearings, as cases crawl at the usual glacial pace through the legal mill. In the meantime, toss the Marites mill a bone, such as the request for immigration lookout bulletin orders for the big guns.

ILBOs, which Jesus Crispin Remulla promptly approved in a parting act as justice secretary, won’t stop any of the 33 covered people from leaving the country.

The government will have to do more than this, to reassure Filipinos and the world that genuine change is on the way – soon, and with full transparency, the lack of which was a key factor in dragging the nation into this mess.

Source: Philstar

Registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession

Registered Land vs. Adverse Possession: Why Time Doesn’t Win for Titled Parcels

In Philippine property law, one of the fundamental guarantees of the Torrens registration system is the principle of indefeasibility — that is, once land is validly registered, the title granted is protected against most claims, even long-standing ones. As such, registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession — no matter how many years someone has occupied or “possessed” it without the owner’s consent.

This rule is more than doctrine: it is entrenched in statute, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, and essential to preserving the reliability of titles in a system premised on registration.

Here’s how the rule works, why it matters, and where the exceptions may lie.

What is Adverse Possession?

Before diving into the exception for registered lands, it helps to recall what adverse possession means in the Philippine context.

Adverse possession—also known in Philippine law as acquisitive prescription—is a means by which, under certain conditions, an occupant of property may become its owner through uninterrupted, public, exclusive, and hostile (or adverse) possession over a prescribed period. Under the Civil Code:

• Extraordinary prescription: 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title.

• Ordinary prescription: 10 years, when the possessor holds in good faith and with a “just title.”

These terms are subject to specific rules, interruptions, and qualifications.)

Thus, in untitled land, or rural land not yet brought under the Torrens system, an adverse possessor could—if all requisites are satisfied—potentially perfect ownership after the statutory period.

The Statutory Barrier: PD 1529 § 44 / Property Registration Decree

However, once a parcel is registered under the Torrens system, the game changes. Section 44 of PD 1529 (the Property Registration Decree) contains a clear prohibition:

“No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”

In effect, formal law declares that you cannot, by mere lapse of time and possession, divest or override a Torrens title. This statutory safeguard upholds the integrity of registration, preventing surprises and undermining confidence in titles.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Reinforcing the Rule

The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the inviolability of Torrens titles against adverse possession claims. Some key points from jurisprudence:

• A registered owner’s title cannot be defeated by mere possession.

• Even decades of occupation outside one’s true boundary (so-called “excess land”) cannot ripen into ownership against a prior Torrens title.

• In “overlapping” or boundary adjustment cases, the remedy is not prescription but equitable or corrective action (e.g. reconveyance, annulment, boundary relocation) rather than extinguishment.

  
  

These holdings confirm that registration is not just a procedural convenience but a substantive shell protecting title from wear and tear of time.

The Exception: Untitled or “Excess” Land Outside the Torrens Domain

Where, then, can adverse possession still operate? Only where the land has not yet been registered or where the portion in question lies outside the metes-and-bounds of an existing Torrens title (e.g., excess or overhang land).

Some illustrative situations:

1. Public domain / Alienable & disposable (A&D) landIf a parcel remains part of the public domain and is classified as alienable and disposable, a possessor may employ adverse possession or judicial confirmation to claim title—provided the statutory requisites are satisfied.

2. Excess land (over-surveyed area)Suppose a Torrens title covers Plot A, but the occupant fences and cultivates a strip beyond the authorized boundary (Plot B). If Plot B is unregistered and part of public domain or alienable land, the occupier may seek to perfect claim over it by prescription (or other statutory route). But if that excess land already belongs (by prior registered title) to some third party, prescription cannot extinguish that prior title.

   
   

Thus, the key is: is the land within the registered title, or is it outside and untitled? If the former, adverse possession won’t cut it.

Practical Implications & Advice for Landowners and Occupants

For Registered Landowners

• You must monitor your boundaries. Mere inaction or non-use does not allow squatters to acquire your titled area.

• If someone encroaches beyond your fence, you cannot just rely on prescription—your remedy lies in ejectment, boundary correction, surveys, or legal action to quiet title or reconvey overlaps.

For Occupants Seeking to Claim Property

• First, determine whether the land is already covered by a Torrens title. If so, adverse possession is not available.

• If the land is untitled and qualifies (e.g. public land open for disposition), make sure your possession is public, continuous, peaceful, exclusive, and adverse (OCEA), and that you meet any good faith / just title requirements for shorter prescription periods.

• Always get survey work, DENR land status certification, and be prepared to file the proper petition (judicial confirmation, free patent, or original registration) rather than rely solely on prescription.

  
  

The maxim “registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession” is more than a catchy aphorism; it is foundational to the Torrens system. It ensures stability and certainty of titles, shielding registered owners from the slow creep of prescriptive claims. While adverse possession remains a vital doctrine in untitled lands, once registration intervenes, time stops working in favor of the occupant.

If you ever wonder whether your land is protected, or whether someone’s long occupation might ripen into title, it pays to consult a property law expert and run a title and boundary check.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate