8/19/2019 DBP v. the Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija

1/2

DBP v. The Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija

UDK No. 7671 !une "# 1$%%

Doctrine: Entry (in the primary entry book) alone produces the effect of registration, whether voluntary or involuntary transactions, as long as the registrant has complied with all requirements for purposes of entry and

annotation.

acts: !wo parcels of land were registered in the names of "pouses #ndres $autista and %arcelina &alison. !he parcels of land were sub'ect of an etra'udicial foreclosure sale of which D$ was the highest bidder. *n +une -,

/0, the D$ presented a sheriff1s certificate of sale in its favor of the two parcels of land. !he transaction was

entered in the 2egistry1s rimary Entry $ook as Entry 3o. /. D$ paid the requisite registration fees on the

same day. 4owever, annotation of the sale on the certificates of title cannot be effected because the originals of thecertificates were missing and cannot be found. *n advice of the 2D, D$ instituted proceedings to reconstitute the

titles before &5. *n +une 6, /7, &5 ordered the reconstitution of the titles. or reasons not stated in the records,

the certificates were reconstituted only on +une , /8. *n +une 76, /8, D$ sought annotation on the

reconstituted titles of the certificate of sale sub'ect of Entry 3o. /. !he #cting 2egister of Deeds, being in doubtof the proper action to take, took the matter to the &ommissioner of 9and 2egistration by consulta. !he #cting 2D

raised the following questions: (a) whether the certificate of sale could be registered using the old Entry 3o. /

made in /0 notwithstanding the fact that the original copies of the reconstituted certificates of title were issued

only on +une , /8 and (b) if the first query was answered affirmatively, whether he could sign the proposed

annotation, having assumed his duties only in +uly /7. &92 issued a resolution holding that Entry 3o. / had been rendered ;... ineffective due to the impossibility of accomplishing registration at the time the document was

entered because of the non

8/19/2019 DBP v. the Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija

2/2

5t is, furthermore, admitted that the requisite registration fees were fully paid and that the certificate of sale was

registrable on its face. D$, therefore, complied with all that was required of it for purposes of both primary entry

and annotation of the certificate of sale. 5t cannot be blamed that annotation could not be made contemporaneously

with the entry because the originals of the sub'ect certificates of title were missing and could not be found, since it

had nothing to do with their safekeeping. 5f anyone was responsible for failure of annotation, it was the 2egister of 

Deeds who was chargeable with the keeping and custody of those documents.

5t does not, therefore, make sense to require D$ to repeat the process of primary entry, paying anew the entry fees

as the appealed resolution disposes, in order to procure annotation which through no fault on its part, had to be

deferred until the originals of the certificates of title were found or reconstituted.