4. Original Registration Proceeding under the Property Registration Decree I want to improve my digest on this case.

Might amend it later or early morning tomorrow. Thanks! G.R. No. L-26127 June 28, 1974 VICTOR BENIN, ET AL. vs. MARIANO SEVERO TUASON y DE LA PAZ, ET AL., defendants. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. G.R. No. L-26128 June 28, 1974 JUAN ALCANTARA, ET AL. vs. MARIANO SEVERO TUASON y DE LA PAZ, ET AL., defendants. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., G.R. No. L-26129 June 28, 1974 DIEGO PILI, ET AL. vs. MARIANO SEVERO TUASON y DE LA PAZ, ET AL., defendants. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ZALDIVAR, J.: Facts: Plaintiffs alleged that the subject parcels of land are under their ownership by way of inheritance and continued possession thereafter. They uniformly alleged that the defendants, with the aid of armed men, force and intimidation, using bulldozers and other demolishing equipment, illegally entered and started demolishing their dwellings. Respondents also worked on obtaining a decree of registration and an OCT. Nevertheless, before granting the registration, the area, boundaries and technical descriptions of the lots were altered and amended which were never published after the publication of the original application. The plaintiffs contended that the Registration Court had no jurisdiction to render the decision for lack of publication; that the decree of registration issued is likewise null and void pursuant to a void decision; and that Original Certificate of Title No. 730 is also null and void pursuant to a void decree of registration. Issue: W/N the LRC had jurisdiction to render the decision for the reason that the amendment to the original plan was not published. Ruling:

LRC had jurisdiction. In the case at bar, the original plan was only amended in order to exclude certain areas that were the subject of opposition, hence not requiring further publishing as provided by the rules. At the same time, there was minimal difference to be of decisive consequence. Further, once a registration court had acquired jurisdiction, it continues attaches to the land. Such registration proceedings and the decree of registration must be declared null and void only in so far as the land not included in the publication is concerned. The registration proceedings, as proceedings in rem, operate as against the whole world and the decree issued therein is conclusive adjudication of the ownership of the lands registered, not only

against those parties who appeared in such proceedings but also against parties who were summoned by publication but did not appear. The lower court also erred when it declared the appellees the owners of the lands claimed by them and in awarding damages to them, in these three cases.

25. Tax Declarations G.R. No. 155703 September 8, 2008

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOMINADOR SANTUA NACHURA, J.: Facts: Dominador Santua filed with a petition for judicial reconstitution of TCT No. T-22868. He alleged that the original copy of the TCT was destroyed by the fire that razed the Capitol Building where the Office of the Register of Deeds was. Furthermore, the duplicate copy was lost and all efforts to locate the same proved futile. Hence, respondent sought to present tax declarations, technical descriptions and lot plans as bases for reconstitution. Issue: Whether or not tax declarations, technical descriptions and lot plans are sufficient bases for reconstitution of lost/destroyed certificates of title Ruling: The tax declaration does not serve as a valid basis for reconstitution. It is executed for taxation purposes only and is actually prepared by the alleged owner himself. As for the survey plan and technical descriptions, these are merely additional self-serving documents that should accompany the petition for reconstitution as required under Section 12 of RA 26 and Land Registration Commission Circular No. 35.

Other documents that are highly credible and thus constitute sufficient bases are those that had been issued or are on file with the Register of Deeds.

45. Nature of land which has not been claimed after cadastral registration G.R. Nos. 129377 & 129399 February 22, 2007

HEIRS OF WENCESLAO TABIA, SPOUSES ERLINDO MAMONONG and VIRGINIA DE LUMBAN, HEIRS OF MANUEL SOMO and FELICIDAD SOCORRO, SPOUSES NICANOR OSORIO and MARIETTA DE LEON, SPOUSES MAXIMINO PEREZ and JOVITA LADUB, HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES JUAN RABACA CRISTINA BADIOLA, JULIANA ANSAY, MACRA BADILLO, ROSALIA RABIE and HEIRS OF PEPING MERCADO and CONCORDIA ABAYARI,

Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ABRAHAM DELA CRUZ and DIRECTOR OF LANDS ABELARDO PALAD, JR., Respondents TINGA, J.:

Facts: Abraham dela Cruz applied for a free patent with the Bureau of Lands covering Lot No. 1430 in Laguna. Petitioners filed their respective protests alleging ownership and possession for over 50 years, and lack of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Lands inasmuch as the lot had become private land. Nevertheless, the Director of the Bureau of Lands rendered the free patent valid and ordered the petitioners to vacate its premises. Issue: Whether or not the Director of Lands had jurisdiction to award the free patent to dela Cruz Ruling: The alleged pendency of a cadastral case involving Lot No. 1430 is not at all inconsistent with the Director of Lands exercise of jurisdiction in B.L. Claim No. 288(n). In fact, the assumption underlying the initiation of cadastral registration proceedings is that the parcels of land covered by the cadastral proceedings are public lands and it is up to the claimants as oppositors to plead and prove otherwise. Since there is no showing that the cadastral case adjudicated Lot No. 1430 in favor of one of the claimants therein, it may still be presumed to be land of the public domain under the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands. Considering further that the cadastral proceedings has remained pending and unresolved since 1930, the Director of Lands properly entertained dela Cruzs application for free patent.