G.R. No. L-20611 May 8, 1969
AURELIO BALBIN and FRANCISCO BALBIN, petitioners, vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS SUR, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Aurelio and Francisco Balbin presented to the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 548 and a “Deed of Donation Inter-Vivos” for annotation. The deed showed that Cornelio Balbin, the registered owner, donated an undivided two-thirds portion of a 11.2225-hectare land to the petitioners. The Register of Deeds refused the annotation, citing that it was “legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law.” This refusal was based on the existence of three prior annotations on the title’s memorandum of encumbrances, recording sales of undivided portions of the same land by Cornelio Balbin to three different buyers: Florentino Gabayan (3,710 sq.m., 1955), Roberto Bravo (16,713 sq.m., 1953), and Juana Gabayan (15,000 sq.m., 1952). The annotations indicated that the original title was cancelled with respect to those sold portions and that three co-owner’s duplicate certificates of title had been issued to these vendees. The Register of Deeds required the surrender of these three co-owner’s duplicates for the annotation to proceed, which the petitioners failed to present. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who upheld the Register of Deeds’ action. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Register of Deeds correctly refused to annotate the Deed of Donation on OCT No. 548 without the presentation of the three co-owner’s duplicate certificates of title that had been previously issued.

RULING

Yes, the Register of Deeds and the Commissioner of Land Registration were correct. The Supreme Court affirmed their decisions. The Court held that Section 55 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), which states that the production of the owner’s duplicate certificate is conclusive authority to register a voluntary instrument, presupposes the existence of only one duplicate copy. In this case, three other co-owner’s duplicates were in existence, having been issued under Section 43 of the same Act. The integrity of the Torrens system requires that all duplicate copies of a title must contain identical entries. Annotating a transaction on one copy but not on the others would undermine the reliability of the registration system. The petitioners’ claim that the issuance of the co-owner’s duplicates was unauthorized was deemed irrelevant, as their lawful issuance is presumed until a competent court rules otherwise. Additionally, the Court noted that if the land was conjugal property (of Cornelio Balbin and his deceased wife), the donation of a two-thirds portion exceeded the donor’s presumptive one-half share, especially after prior sales, which presented a facial infirmity justifying the denial of registration. The matter was best left to await the outcome of a pending court case (CC No. 2221) where the status of the land and the validity of the conveyances were in issue.