Scribd
Upload
123 views2 pages

Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., GR 123346, Nov. 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 305

This case involved a land dispute between CLT Realty Development Corporation and Manotok Realty, Inc. over property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 994. CLT argued that the TCT should be considered registered on the date the decree of registration was issued, while Manotok argued it should be the date the TCT was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Manotok, finding that the actual date of registration was when the TCT was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on May 3, 1917, as that was when the decree was officially transcribed into the registration book and the TCT took legal effect.

Uploaded by

Gia Dimayuga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views2 pages

Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., GR 123346, Nov. 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 305

This case involved a land dispute between CLT Realty Development Corporation and Manotok Realty, Inc. over property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 994. CLT argued that the TCT should be considered registered on the date the decree of registration was issued, while Manotok argued it should be the date the TCT was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Manotok, finding that the actual date of registration was when the TCT was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on May 3, 1917, as that was when the decree was officially transcribed into the registration book and the TCT took legal effect.

Uploaded by

Gia Dimayuga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

246. Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., GR 123346, Nov.

29,
2005, 476 SCRA 305

FACTS

On 10 August 1992, CLT Realty Development Corporation (CLT) sought to recover from
Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation (Manotoks) the possession of Lot
26 of the Maysilo Estate in an action filed before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City, Branch 129. The trial court, ruling for CLT, adopted the factual findings and
conclusions arrived at by the majority commissioners appointed to resolve the conflict of
titles. It was established that the entire Maysilo Estate was registered under Act No. 496
by virtue of which OCT No. 994 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal; that Lot
26 was transferred to CLT by Hipolito whose title was derived from the Dimson title and
that on the basis of the technical descriptions of the property appearing in the Manotok
titles, the latter's property indeed encroached on the property described in CLT's title.

As evident on the face of OCT No. 994, the decree of registration was issued on 19
April 1917, and actually "received for transcription" by the Register of Deeds on 3 May
1917. Interestingly, even as CLT admits that there is only one OCT No. 994, that which
the Solicitor General had presented to the Court, it maintains that the OCT should be
deemed registered as of the date of issuance of the decree of registration, 19 April
1917, instead of the date it was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3
May 1917. The argument is based on the theory that it is "the decree of registration
[that] produces legal effects," though it "is entered before the transmittal of the same for
transcription at the Register of Deeds."

ISSUE

Whether or not CLT is correct that the OCT should be deemed registered as of the date
of issuance of the decree of registration, 19 April 1917, instead of the date it was
received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917?

RULING

No. CLT is incorrect. What is actually issued by the register of deeds is the certificate of
title itself, not the decree of registration, as he is precisely the recipient from the land
registration office of the decree for transcription to the certificate as well as the
transcriber no less. Since what is now acknowledged as the authentic OCT No. 994
indicates that it was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on 3
May 1917, it is that date that is the date of registration since that was when he was able
to transcribe the decree in the registration book, such entry made in the book being the
original certificate of title. Moreover, it is only after the transcription of the decree by the
register of deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect.
The case is REMANDED to the Special Division of the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings to determine which of the contending parties are able to trace back their
claims of title to OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917.

You might also like