Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
13Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Consolidated Cases

Consolidated Cases

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,014 |Likes:
Published by Myra Chavez

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Myra Chavez on Jul 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Case Digest – Land, Titles & DeedsIntroduction & Modes of Acquiring Ownership
CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC. v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.
G.R. No. L-16257 January 31, 1963
FACTS:
Said Lot 378 is part of Hacienda Mandalagan consisting of Lots 378, 405, 407,410, 1205, 1452 and 1641 of the cadastral survey, originally registered in the nameof Agustin Amenabar and Pilar Amenabar. In 1920, the latter sold the hacienda to JoseBenares who obtained Original Certificate Title in lieu thereof. In 1921, he mortgagedthe Hacienda, including Lot 378 to the Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. On 1926, JoseBenares again mortgaged the Hacienda, including said Lot 378, on the PhilippineNational Bank, subject to the first mortgage held by the Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. These transactions were duly recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of NegrosOccidental. The mortgage in favor of the Bank was subsequently foreclosed, and theBank acquired the Hacienda, including Lot 378, and had the title in its name.However, Bank did not take possession of the property for Jose Benares claimed to beentitled to retain it under an alleged right of lease. On 1935, the Bank agreed to sellthe Hacienda to Carlos P. Benares, son of Jose Banares. Thereafter, Carlos P. Benarestransferred his rights, under this contract with the Bank, to plaintiff herein, whichcompleted the payment of the installments due to the Bank in 1949. Hence, on 1949,the Bank executed the corresponding deed of absolute sale to the plaintiff and Transfer Certificate of Title in plaintiff's name. When upon the execution of the deedof absolute sale by the Bank, plaintiff took steps to take possession the Hacienda, itwas discovered that Lot 378 was the land occupied by the Provincial Hospital of Negros Occidental. Defendant claims that it acquired Lot 378 through expropriationproceedings in 1924,it took possession of said lot and began the construction thereonof the provincial hospital, which was completed in 1926. It maintains that it paid to Jose Benares the assessed value of Lot 378.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant herein had acquired Lot 378 in the expropriationproceedings.
HELD:
Several circumstances strongly indicate that the expropriation had not beenconsummated. The mortgage to the Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., as well as thesubsequent mortgage in favor of the Bank was duly registered and annotated,
inter alia
, on Transfer Certificate of Title. Hence, Lot 378 would not have possibly beenexpropriated without the intervention of the aforementioned mortgagees. What ismore, the deed executed by the Bank, among other evidences, promising to sell theHacienda to Carlos Benares explicitly states that portions of Lot 405, 407 and 410,had been expropriated by the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental, thusindicating, by necessary implication, that Lot 378 had not been expropriated. Uponthe other hand, the main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflictsof title in and to real estate, and to facilitate transactions relative thereto giving thepublic the right to rely upon the face of Torrens certificate of title and to dispensewith the of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledgeof facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to makesuch further inquiry. In the case at bar plaintiff had no such actual knowledge, it beingan established fact that he was not aware until 1949 that the land on which theprovincial hospital stood was Lot 378. Thus, Lot 378, must be held, therefore, to bethe exclusive property of plaintiff herein.Alpha Bonifacio. Cherry Chao. Myra Chavez. Harriett Gutierrez. Jose Sotelo. KimVillanueva
 
Case Digest – Land, Titles & DeedsIntroduction & Modes of Acquiring Ownership 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Director of Lands) v. THE HON. COURTOF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) AND SANTOS DEL RIO
G.R. No. L-43105 August 31, 1984
FACTS:
 The lot subject matter of this land registration case is situated near the shoreof Laguna de Bay. It was purchased by Benedicto del Rio from Angel Pili. The Deed of Sale evidencing said purchase is duly recorded with the Registry of Deeds. WhenBenedicto del Rio died, the subject parcel passed on to his son, Santos del Rio. Santosdel Rio, herein applicant-private respondent, filed his application for registration of said parcel on 1966. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands and byprivate oppositors, petitioners. Sometime before 1966, private oppositors obtainedpermission from Santos del Rio to construct duck houses on the land in question.Although there was no definite commitment as to rentals, some of them had madevoluntary payments to private respondent. In violation of the original agreement,private oppositors constructed residential houses on the land which prompted privaterespondent to file an ejectment suit against the former in 1966. Director of Landsaver that since a portion of the land sought to be registered is covered with waterfour to five months a year, the same is part of the
lake bed
of Laguna de Bay, or is atleast, a
foreshore
land, which cannot be the subject of registration.
ISSUE:
1.Whether or not the parcel of land in question is public land; and2.Whether or not applicant private respondent has registerable title to theland.
HELD:
 The inundation of a portion of the land is not due to "flux and reflux of tides" itcannot be considered a foreshore land, hence it is not a public land and thereforecapable of registration as private property provided that the applicant proves that hehas a registerable title. The purpose of land registration under the Torrens System isnot the acquisition of lands but only the registration of title which applicant alreadypossesses over the land. While it is true that by themselves tax receipts anddeclarations of ownership for taxation purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription whenaccompanied by proof of actual possession of the property. Applicant by himself andthrough his father before him, has been in open, continuous, public, peaceful,exclusive and adverse possession of the disputed land for more than thirty (30) yearsand has presented tax declarations and tax receipts. Applicant has more thansatisfied the legal requirements. Thus, he is clearly entitled to the registration in hisfavor of said land.
CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 123361 March 3, 1997
FACTS:
Alpha Bonifacio. Cherry Chao. Myra Chavez. Harriett Gutierrez. Jose Sotelo. KimVillanueva
 
Case Digest – Land, Titles & DeedsIntroduction & Modes of Acquiring OwnershipDona Demetria Cacho applied for the registration of two (2) parcels of landsituated in Lanao, Moro Province. Both parcels were within the limits of the MilitaryReservation No. 43 known as “Camp Overton” The application was tried and decidedby Judge Jesse Jorge and he granted the petitioner (Cacho) the entitlement to the two(2) parcels of land. On June 29, 1978, Teofilo Cacho, the sole heir of the deceasedDemetria Cacho filed for a petition for the reconstitution of the two (2) originalcertificates of title under RA 26. The petition was opposed to by the Republic of thePhilippines, National Steel Corporation and the City of Iligan on the basis of theRegalian Doctrine – that states that – all lands of whatever classification belong to theState. The matter was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA denied thepetition for reconstitution of title and ordered that the decree of registration bereopened. Thus, the instant petition to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, CA erred in its decision to reopen the decrees issued by the Judge Jesse Jorge.
HELD:
A land registration proceeding is “in rem”. The decree of registration is bindingupon and conclusive against all persons including the Government and its branches,irrespective of whether or not they were personally notified of the filing of theapplication, because all persons are considered as notified by the publication requiredby law. A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive notonly on the questions actually contested and determined but also upon all mattersthat might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings. It is no doubtthat the decrees of registration had been issued and such decrees attained finalityupon the lapse of one year from entry thereof. The decision of the CA to reopen thedecrees previously issued runs counter to the very purpose of the Torrens System. Italso constitutes a derogation of the Doctrine of Res Judicata. The decrees are res judicata and these are binding upon the whole world, the proceedings being in thenature of proceedings in rem. Such a requirement is impermissible assault upon theintegrity and stability of the Torrens System of registration because it also effectivelyrenders the decree inconclusive.
BARANDA v. GUSTILO
GR No. 81163 September 26, 1988
FACTS:
A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta.Barbara, Iloilo covered by original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject of thedispute between petitioner (Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia) and respondents(Gregorio Perez, Maria Gotera and Susan Silao). Both parties claimed ownership andpossession over the said land. However during the trial, it was found that the transfercertificate of title held by respondents was fraudulently acquired. So the transfercertificate of title was ordered to be put in the name of petitioners. In compliance withthe order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the orderdeclaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued new certificate of titles in the name of petitioners. However, by reason of a separate case pending inthe Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new certificate of title. This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lispendens in the new certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Alpha Bonifacio. Cherry Chao. Myra Chavez. Harriett Gutierrez. Jose Sotelo. KimVillanueva

Activity (13)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Chii liked this
anajuanito liked this
Dayday Able liked this
neelrahs026 liked this
Dael Gerong liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->