G.R. No. L‑4773
Manila Building and Loan Association & Gregorio Peñalosa v. Court of Land Registration
En Banc, July 13 1909

—

FACTS: 1. The Manila Building and Loan Association (MBL) applied on 14 Jan 1908 to register a “building of strong materials” erected on land owned by Benito Legarda.
2. The Court of Land Registration denied the application (3 Mar 1908), holding that a building cannot be registered separately from the land unless the landowner registers the lease.
3. MBL filed a motion to amend its petition; the court reiterated its stance, emphasizing that registration of a building without registration of the underlying land would undermine title stability (6 Apr 1908).
4. MBL amended its petition, alleging that:
– Legarda’s land was duly registered;
– Legarda had leased the land to Gregorio Peñalosa, who sub‑leased it to MBL with the owner’s consent;
– The lease was entered as an incumbrance on Legarda’s title (per Decree 9 Aug 1907, Case No. 2724).
5. The court thereafter ordered that a notation be entered on the back of the land certificate indicating that the building on the leased portion belongs to the lessee, affirming its earlier rulings (14 Apr 1908).
6. MBL appealed, asserting two errors: (a) misinterpretation of Sec. 2 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) that allegedly permits independent registration of buildings on leased land; (b) dismissal of the application.

—

ISSUE: Whether, under Sec. 2 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) and related statutory provisions, a building erected on land that is not owned by the applicant but is subject to a duly registered lease may be registered independently of the land title.

—

RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Land Registration’s decision.

1. Statutory Construction: The phrase “land or buildings or an interest therein” in Sec. 2 of Act No. 496 is conjunctive, not disjunctive; it requires that the land and any buildings thereon be registered together, reflecting the principle that a building is an accessory to the land. The inclusion of “buildings” does not intend to authorize registration of structures belonging to a different owner.

2. Legal Policy: Allowing separate registration of a building on leased land would create an anomalous and unstable title, contravening the purpose of the Land Registration Act, which seeks a single, reliable chain of title. The Spanish Mortgage Law and related statutes similarly preclude such separate registration absent registration of the lease.

3. Effect of Lease Registration: When the lease is entered as an incumbrance on the land’s title (as was done in Legarda’s deed), the lessee’s right to the building is reflected by a notation on the certificate, not by a separate title. This satisfies statutory requirements without compromising title stability.

Consequently, the petition for independent registration of the building was dismissed, and the order of the Court of Land Registration was affirmed with costs.

—