This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
TOPIC: PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES (1990, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) I Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a fivestar hotel in New York, USA, entrusted to his first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration, under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Philippines and discovered that Dewey registered the land and obtained an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his (Dewey’s) name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel of land against Huey. A. Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy? B. Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will the action prosper if the case was filed beyond one year, but within ten years, from the entry of the decree of registration? ANSWERS: A. An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the proper remedy, because Huey is an innocent purchaser for value. The proper recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for damages by reason of the fraudulent registration and subsequent sale of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim against the Assurance Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez vs. De Castro 324 SCRA 591  citing Sps. Eduarte vs. CA, 323 Phil 462 ). B. Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action prescribes in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year when a petition for the reopening of the registration decree may be filed. The action for reconveyance is distinct from the petition to reopen the decree of registration (Grey Alba vs. Dela Cruz, 17 Phil 49 ). There is no need to reopen the registration proceedings, but the property should just be reconveyed to the real owner. The action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the original certificate of title. This rule assumes that the defendant is in possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title which action is imprescriptible (David vs. Malay, 318 SCRA 711 ). II In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a loan. O acted through his attorney in fact, son, S, who was duly authorized by way of a special power of attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute owner of the land, that the tax declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the concept of owner. As O was unable to pay back the loan plus
interest for the past five (5) years, M had to foreclose the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale and registration in January, 1966, the mortgage property was turned over to M’s possession and control. M has since then developed the said property. In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P. In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father O, son P filed a suit to annul the mortgage deed and subsequent sale of the property, etc., on the ground of fraud. He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in nature actually belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S and P) and to O. A. Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your answer. B. After the issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale in 1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for registration under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to the said property in question, would that added fact have any significant effect on your conclusion? State your reason. (1990) ANSWERS:
San Beda College of
A. Under Art. 173, CC, the action is barred by prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed. B. If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies would be: 1. A Petition to Review the Decree of registration. This can be availed of within one (1) year from the entry thereof, but only upon the basis of “actual fraud.” There is no showing that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the land; or 2. An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of the title in their favor. Again, this remedy is available within four (4) years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the title in the name of M. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or eleven years after the execution of the sheriff’s final sale, has obviously prescribed because: 1. An action to annul a contract on the ground of fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action to recover ownership, it must be reckoned from the date of execution of the contract or from the registration of the alleged fraudulent
O acted through his attorney in fact.document with the assessor’s office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration. wherein O declared that he was the absolute owner of the land. Will the suit prosper? (1998) ANSWER: The suit will prosper. 2001) I Section 70 of PD 1529. the mortgage property was turned over to M’s possession and control. an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by owner O to M. L. M has since then developed the said property. IAC. Suppose a notice of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell was registered on March 1. Since this is in essence an action to recover Red Notes in Civil Law II In 1960. 1966. 2.” There is no showing that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the land. but only upon the basis of “actual fraud. it would have prescribed just the same because more than ten (10) years have already elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale. is only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership property. it continuous to be effective until it is cancelled by formal petition filed with the Register of Deeds. counted from the date of its registration. whose conjugal share went to their sons (S and P) and to O. and that he . ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. would that added fact have any significant effect on your conclusion? State your reason. but on June 1. has obviously prescribed because: 3. or after the lapse of the 30-day period. who was duly authorized by way of a special power of attorney. M had to foreclose the mortgage. If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land. 1994. etc. While an adverse claim duly annotated at the back of a title under Sec. After the issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale in 1966 in this case. assuming that M applied for registration under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to the said property in question. all the more S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies would be: 3. as collateral for a loan. concerning adverse claims on registered land. As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for the past five (5) years. The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a just title. 169 SCRA 617). the inscription thereof will remain annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of adverse claim is 30 days under PD 1529. to O and his wife. W. 1998. S. M was the highest bidder. the BUYER brings an action against the JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation. (1990) ANSWERS: A. CC. The mortgage contract executed by O. Upon issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale and registration in January. At the foreclosure sale. B. this being unregistered land (Bael vs. Because the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to the new title in his name. The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under Sec. or eleven years after the execution of the sheriff’s final sale. GR No. the BUYER pays to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full and registers the corresponding deed of sale. In 1977. Then. continuous and adverse possession in the concept of owner. C. TOPIC: TORRENS SYSTEM (1990. 108 of PD 1529 considering that the levy on execution cannot be enforced against the buyer whose adverse claim against the registered owner was recorded ahead of the notice of levy on execution. 1997 at the instance of the BUYER. A Petition to Review the Decree of registration. O died. 1989. 1997 there having been no formal cancellation of his notice of adverse claim. on June 15. An action to annul a contract on the ground of fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the date of discovery of the fraud. has been in open. survived by sons S and P. otherwise. that the tax declarations/receipts were all issued in his name. 1997. Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your answer. Again. An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of the title in their favor. In 1967. Under Art. He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in nature actually belonging. 1991. 173. 70 of PD 1529 is good only for 30 days. at the time of the mortgage. son P filed a suit to annul the mortgage deed and subsequent sale of the property.74423 January 30. after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father O. this remedy is available within four (4) years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the title in the name of M. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. This can be availed of within one (1) year from the entry thereof. or 4. the action is barred by prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed. cancellation thereof is still necessary to render it neffective. D. If the action is to be treated as an action to recover ownership of land. a family friend. if at all. on the ground of fraud.. a notice of levy on execution in favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to enforce a final judgment for money against the registered owner. son. but the latter claims that his lien is superior because it was annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso facto ceased to be effective. provides a 30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim.
1994 claiming that he has been in actual. the court ordered the LRA and the CENRO to file with it a report on the status of the subject land. since the property was reclassified as alienable and disposable only on April 16. 1976. 1973 and Francisco filed his application only on December 27. (Zarate vs Director of Lands. open. 131501. 126316. the land applied for is foreshore land. this being unregistered land (Bael vs. some lots which were covered by the mortgaged titles were expressly excluded from the auction since those that were sold were sufficient to pay for all the mortgage debts. continuous and notorious possession. It appears that he likewise filed a foreshore lease application over the same land in 1977. the mistakes or negligent acts of its officials or agents. Francisco failed to adduce in evidence any certification from the Bureau of Lands or the Bureau of Forestry to the effect that the property is alienable or disposable. non-suited as a result thereof. GR No. the action for annulment of judgment should be sustained since it is impressed with public interest.1: Angel filed a petition for registration of a parcel of land on June 22. During the auction sale. Even if the decision of the RTC has become final and executory. L. it must be reckoned from the date of execution of the contract or from the registration of the alleged fraudulent document with the assessor’s office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees. and continuous possession in the concept of an owner. This notwithstanding.3: The spouses Zulueta obtained from GSIS various loans secured by real estate mortgages over parcels of land. mineral or forest land is the prerogative of the Executive Department. GR No. which is alternatively covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of tides. b) NO. some of the mortgaged properties were awarded to GSIS. . It is part of the alienable land of the public domain and may be disposed of only by lease and not otherwise. cassava. open.74423 January 30. He alleged therein that there were hardly any big trees in the subject property and that he and his predecessors-ininterest even planted bananas. If the action is to be treated as an action to recover ownership of land. b) YES. GR No.141. 169 SCRA 617). 1976. coconut trees and camotes on the same. or estopped from. IAC. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by Kaingin cultivators or other farmers. a) Should the petition for registration be granted? b) Is the absence of big trees conclusive as regards to the classification of a parcel of land as not belonging to forest land? ANSWERS: a) NO. notorious and continuous possession of the property in the concept of owner. It is that part of the land adjacent to the sea. in the concept of an owner over the same. Francisco filed a petition for registration of the three parcels of land. Furthermore. 1995. However. a) What is the nature and classification of foreshore land? b) Will the action of the Republic through the OSG prosper? ANSWERS: a) NO. A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. he irrefragably failed to prove his possession of the property for the requisite thirty (30)-year period. The said decision became final and executory. mush more.ownership. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands on the ground that the subject property was forest land and was only reclassified as alienable and disposable only on April 16. There is therefore doubt to Angel’s claim that he had been in actual. Furthermore. 2004) QUESTION No. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. the classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable. (Republic vs Court of Appeals. The court thereafter rendered a decision on May 3 1995 granting the petition. Angel had in fact filed a foreshore lease application in 1977 and paid the corresponding fees thereon. The State has to protect its interests and cannot be bound by. The rule on the confirmation of imperfect title does not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. notorious. The Office of the Solicitor general subsequently filed a petition for annulment of the above judgment on the ground that based on the report of the LRA which was received by it on June 22. The spouses Zulueta failed to pay their loans which prompted GSIS to foreclose the real estate mortgages. 1973. He further alleged that he had been in actual. 1989. July 14. 4. Foreshore land is that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and is alternatively wet and dry to the flow of the tide.2: On December 27. June 25. 2004) QUESTION No. nipa palms and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. It is not capable of private appropriation. During the trial. Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. open. QUESTION No. “Forest Lands” do not have to be in the mountains or in out of the way places. Foreshore land remains part of the public domain and is outside the commerce of man. The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a just title. it would have prescribed just the same because more than ten (10) years have already elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale.
1985. 155206. considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. In fine. The proper recourse of the true owner is to bring . CA and Heirs of Bullongan. substituted the latter. 255 SCRA 335). 2003) QUESTION No. On July 8.e. This Torrens title is now a conclusive evidence of his ownership of the subject land. The decision became final and executory. The issue should have been raised during the proceeding before the cadastral court. It is well settled that a holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law for the law cannot be used as a shield for fraud. After the expiration of the one-year period from the issuance of the decree of registration. the institution of the action for reconveyance was thus well within the prescriptive period. who claimed to be the only son of Guillermo. i. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Eduardo then filed on May 7. After the trial. 4: In August 1950. a forged deed is void but it can be the root of a valid title if registered in the name of the forger then transferred to an innocent purchaser for value absent any showing that the buyer had any part in the anomaly. OCT No. the fact that he has a legal title over the subject land entitles him to possession thereof. Hence. the person obtaining it is. certificates of title over the same were issued in the name of GSIS. a) Can GSIS legally claim ownership over the excluded properties on the basis of the certificates of title over the same which were issued in its name? b) Has the action for reconveyance prescribed? ANSWERS: a) NO. Guillermo died during the pendency of the case. the Republic of the Philippines filed an application with the cadastral court claiming ownership over certain properties which covered Lot 4329. Sometime thereafter. Zulueta thereafter transferred his rights over the excluded lots to Eduardo in 1989 who consequently demanded from GSIS the return of the said excluded lots. Even if titles over the lots had been issued in the name of the GSIS. Santiago came know of GSIS’ fraudulent acts only in 1989 and the complaint was filed in 1990. Gregorio. Land Titles and Deeds [COMPILED BY: ATTY. alleging that Guillermo died single and without issue and that Gregorio obtained title to the property through fraud deceit and gross misrepresentation. Is Gregorio entitled to the possession of the disputed property? ANSWER: YES. But even after the lapse of one year from the issuance of the patent. CIRIACO CRUZ] FRAUD A title issued pursuant to a patent under administrative proceeding is as indefeasible as a title secured in a judicial proceeding. 1975 an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership on the basis of which. Following the Court’s pronouncement in Samonte. the said certificate of title became incontrovertible.151 was issued in the name of Gregorio. An action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The prayer for the cancellation of Gregorio’s title and the reconveyance of the same to brothers and sisters of Guillermo is legally impossible. Guillermo filed an answer claiming therein a right over Lot 4329. What we are emphasizing is that. whether or not his title was obtained fraudulently is beyond the competence of the Supreme Court to determine. still it could not legally claim ownership and absolute dominion over them because indefeasibility of title under the Torrens system does not attach to titles secured by fraud or misrepresentation. although Gregorio has not sufficiently proved his filiation to the late Guillermo. the government may still initiate an action for reversion of the land to the public domain if the land is titled through fraud or misrepresentation as when the applicant stated that the subject land is exclusively possessed by him when in truth it overlaps the land of an adjacent owner. whether or not it was fraudulently issued can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Gregorio was able to obtain a title in his name over the questioned property after the cadastral proceedings instituted by the Republic. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. 1990 a complaint for reconveyance of real estate against the GSIS. the brothers and sisters of Guillermo filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Gregorio. To sustain the said action would be inconsistent with the rule that the act of registration is the operative act that conveys a parcel of land to its registered owner under the Torrens system. pending the final determination of the validity of the title issued to him in an appropriate proceeding. (GSIS vs Santiago. 0-6. The general rule that the discovery of fraud is deemed to have taken place upon the registration of real property because it is “considered a constructive notice to all persons” does not apply in this case. by force of law. The fraud committed by GSIS in the form of concealment of the existence of said lots and failure to return the same to the real owners after their exclusion from the foreclosure sale made GSIS holders in bad faith. The case in point is Samonte vs Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court reckoned the prescriptive period for the filing of the action based on implied trust from the actual discovery of the fraud. Generally. and to him. b) NO. the rights of the innocent purchaser for value must be respected.GSIS included the excluded lots when it executed on November 25. October 28. Lot 4329 was adjudicated by the court. the court declared that Gregorio has not sufficiently proved that he is the son of Guillermo but ruled that he has the right of possession of the disputed property. the issue on the validity of title. Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides: If the property is acquired through mistake or fraud. GR No. They prayed that Gregorio’s title be cancelled and the property be reconveyed to them.
an action for damages against the party who caused the fraud. CA. a purchaser who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full fair price for the property is a buyer in good faith. A party's failure to raise a restraining arm or a shout of dissent to another party's possession of a parcel of land in a span of 30 years is contrary to his claim of ownership. or interest in. use of forged document or perjured witness are not extrinsic fraud as it does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings. 270 SCRA 309). onewho. PUBLIC LANDS A title may be confirmed under Section 48 of the Public Land Act (PLA) only if it pertains to alienable lands of the public domain but unless such assets are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. so hold has no valid title to said property and therefore cannot dispose of the same. or where it operates upon matters pertaining. in equity and good conscience. (Strait Times. but if he is in possession thereof. Red Notes in Civil Law Actual fraud or extrinsic fraud proceeds from the intentional deception produced by means of misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. an ocular inspection of the premises is a safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually takes and should he find out that the land is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who is not in actual possession. Fraud is extrinsic or collateral where a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial. Purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same on the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. As a rule. (Oclarit vs. (Legarda vs. 295 SCRA 356). a widower who adjudicates the entire conjugal property to himself holds the children's share in the property in trust. 267 SCRA 339). Jr. CA. CA and Felicio. cannot ripen into ownership . (Marquez vs. CA. 260 SCRA 283). (Heirs of Manuel Roxas and Trinidad De Leon vs. (Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay. Accordingly.. but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is no fair submission of the controversy. Hence. Republic. obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not. 270 SCRA 309). 294 SCRA 714). the right to seek reconveyance. This rule applies only when plaintiff or party enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property. (Eduarte vs. CA. An RTC court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim. no matter how long. As is the common practice in the real estate industry. et al. vs. CA. GOOD FAITH. 300 SCRA 653). 233 SCRA 39). 298 SCRA 172). the same may be lost by laches caused by a party's inaction or passivity in asserting his rights over the disputed property. A party deprived of his land by confirmation of title through actual fraud may seek for reopening of a decree of registration within one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. 301 SCRA 450). CA. does not prescribe. While registered land under the system makes the title thereto imprescriptible. it is incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupants' possessory rights. Torrens system does not vest title because it is not recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership. after hearing and actual fraud was proved to exist. et al. CA. (Francisco Baguio vs. CA. vs. 240 SCRA 737). Before the expiration of the one-year period from the entry of the decree. (Sandoval vs. Constructive trust is created in equity in order to prevent unjust enrichment. by fraud. a real contest or from presenting his case to the court. INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE One who deals with property covered by the Torrens system of registration need not go beyond the title to determine the condition of the property. CA. (Heirs of Teodoro Dela Cruz vs. A person dealing with registered land has the right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of inquiring further. Inc. Extrinsic fraud prevents the party from presenting his entire case to the court. 253 SCRA 391). 280 SCRA 642). duress or abuse of confidence. A person in good faith and for value is defined as one who buys property of another without notice that some other person has a right to. or interest in. Hence. the property. (Heirs of Manuel Roxas and Trinidad De Leon vs. OWNERSHIP / POSSESSION An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on constructive or implied trust prescribes in 10 years reckoned from the issuance of title or date of registration. (Cabrera vs. he who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving said assertion. 278 SCRA 803). CA. (Santiago vs.. the court retains control of the decision which. Tax declaration and tax receipts become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession. such property and pays a full and fair price of the time of the purchase or before he has notice that other person has a right to. occupation thereof in the concept of owner. may adjudicate the land to any party entitled thereto. Thus. which in effect is an action to quiet title. Any false statement in the application for a land patent shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the same even after the lapse of one year from issuance of said patent pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act wherein an action may be undertaken for the reversion of the land to the public domain. et al. not to the judgment itself. (GSIS vs. CA. A certificate of title cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate fraud. CA..
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title. the land may revert to the public domain upon petition of the Solicitor General. Republic. et al. (Republic vs. Under Section 101 of the PLA. (De Ocampo vs. (Director of Lands vs. CA and Heirs of Ribaya. the one year period to file a review of the decree does not apply. 1894.amended further Section 48(b) of the PLA by stating that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open. 301 SCRA 450). The government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably with its citizens and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing. (Cultural Center). (Republic vs. an action for reversion to the public domain of land fraudulently titled may be initiated even after the lapse of one year as said action is not barred by prescription. et al. CA and Pasay City. 1977 . 276 SCRA 276). (Republic Opol National Secondary Technical School vs. possession of forest lands no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership. continuous. and must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice.June 22. Jude Enterprises. fraudulent titling or other questionable practice.. the period of 30 years of open. 299 SCRA 199). Hence. hence. RA 1942 . a strict application of the law is warranted. et al. The State by recognizing the right of tribal Filipinos to their ancestral lands and domains has effectively upheld their right to live in a culture distinctly their own as enunciated in Article III of the Constitution. the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register the title of the applicant. 347 SCRA 128) If public land was titled but turned out to be forest land instead of agricultural land.amended Section 48(b) of the PLA by prescribing open. 1936 .and be registered as a title. may be withdrawn as shown in PD 3-A. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation would not suffice to confer title to a settler. (Director of Lands vs. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership except as against the government since July 26. continuous.December 1.those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open. (Heirs of Amunategui vs. this is subject to exception if it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. PD 1073 . 343 SCRA 716) Sales patents fraudulently obtained are invalid and the State should initiate the suit to recover the property thru the Solicitor General and not by a supposedly aggrieved party who has no personality to initiate such litigation. Sec. Publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette is not enough to confer jurisdiction to the court because the law requires publication also in a newspaper. Arlos. (De Ocampo vs. The authority granted to local governments to undertake reclamation projects was a mere grant by the sovereign which. . The government's prolonged inaction for 20 years whereby it failed to correct and recover the increased area in the land of a private party militates against its cause as it is tantamount to laches which is the failure or neglect for unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could have been done earlier. Periods required in possession and occupation of public land to qualify as claimant: Section 48(b) of the PLA . It must however be applied together with the constitutional provision on social justice and land reform. 1957 . Foreshore lands or submerged areas which may be reclaimed under RA 1899 by local governments are part of the public domain which could only be subject of reclamation by the national government under PD 3-A. 343 SCRA 716) The Regalian Doctrine which forms part of our land laws is a revered and long standing principle. On the contrary. (Cruz vs. CA. 1945. The word "shall" denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of the statute that publication shall be in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation. (Francisco Baguio vs.January 23. Absent any publication in any newspaper of general circulation.. 126 SCRA 69) RA 8371 known as Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) that grants to indigenous cultural communities the ownership of ancestral lands and domains held by them under native title are undisputably presumed private lands because they have been held that way since before theSpanish conquest or as far as memory reaches. Director of Forestry. particularly so when the President reserves said public land for a public purpose. 142 SCRA 57) Rules on confirmation of title do not apply unless the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation by the Executive branch of the government. Section 48(b) of the PLA was clarified by PD 1073 that said section applied only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. continuous. Nicanor Doldol. in the exercise of police power. Arlos. continuous. Funtilar.258 SCRA 223). the IPRA Law is in consonance with and not violative of the Constitution. (Republic vs. (See also Section 14 of PD 1529) Accordingly. But when the land of public domain is in danger of ruthless exploitation. of DENR. 301 SCRA 3). 295 SCRA 359). While the general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes and errors of its officials and its agents. CA and St. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12.
. 93 Phil 348). (Gloria Cruz vs. whether or not it was fraudulently issued can only be raised in an action expressly initiated for that purpose. A land registration proceeding is in rem and therefore a decree of registration issued thereafter is binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the government. CA and Francisco. all the property of the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or wife. the better approach is to trace the original certificate from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. 269 SCRA 359). et al. When the court decision has become final and the court directs the LRA to issue a decree of registration. Tan. (Heirs of the Spouses Benito Ganico vs. changed. Register of Deeds of Quezon City and RTC. (MWSS vs. in cases where two certificates cover the same land. even if both are presumed to be titleholders in good faith. a registered owner who executed a deed of sale in favor of another without any consideration (except their common-law relationship) and caused the registration of said conveyance validly transmits the property which can be conveyed to an innocent purchaser for value. (Ramos vs Rodriguez. CA. Hence. 281 SCRA 495). (Ramos vs Rodriguez. vs. neither could ownership be proven thru tax payment receipts or tax declarations as they are not conclusive evidence of ownership. 352 SCRA 47) Indefeasibility of title does not attach to a Torrens title secured by fraud and misrepresentation. 215 SCRA 783). Republic. the court still retains control and may alter or modify the same if the decree of registration has not been issued by the LRA. the LRA is not legally obligated to follow the court's order when the land sought to be registered is discovered to have been already decreed and titled in the name of another. 244 SCRA 418). CA.. one who loses his property and review of decree is no longer available. Certificate of title merely confirms or records the title already existing and vested. except those provided by law. a certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the land had already been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence. Hence. Where two titles have been issued on different dates to two different persons for the same parcel of land. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. Assuming that there was regularity in registration leading to the issuance of title. 301 SCRA 450) The issue of validity of title. (Teofilo Cacho vs. 351 SCRA 112) Torrens title acquires the character of indefeasibility one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Should there be one common original title.DECREE OF REGISTRATION As long as a final decree has not been entered by the LRA and the period of one year has not yet elapsed from the date of entry of such decree the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision of the court in the registration proceedings continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it. CA and Santiago. 295 SCRA 733. citing the case of Cruz vs. Hence. A certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence. Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for value in good faith holds title to land free from all encumbrances. CA and Romy Suzara. i.e. the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration. CA. (Divina vs. (Villanueva vs. When the certificate of title is issued in the name of the original buyer on installment who died before completion of payment.. the heirs who continued the installment payments may invoke Section 108 of PD 1529 to correct the error and have the land registered in their names. 272 SCRA 803). a collateral attack impugning the validity of the title in a suit for recovery of ownership is an indirect challenge to the final judgment and decree of registration. 244 SCRA 418). QC. the certificate bearing the earlier date prevails. (Cervantes vs. (Baguio vs. A decree of registration that has become final shall be conclusive not only on questions actually contested and determined but also upon all matters that ought to be litigated or decided in land registration proceedings. Nat’l Dev’t Co. 352 SCRA 527) Real purpose of Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land and put a stop to any question of legality of title except claims which have been recorded in the certificate of title at the time of registration. (Seville vs. even if the decision of the land registration court has reached finality. Where 2 certificates of title purport to cover the same land. 351 SCRA 12) Title once registered under the Torrens system should not thereafter be altered. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title to determine the condition of the property. Jr. 295 SCRA 356). (Esquivas vs. (Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay. open and notorious possession nor prescription. CA. . (Ernesto Dawson. Otherwise stated. modified or diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law as provided in Section 48 of PD 1529 disallowing collateral attack of a Torrens title. Thus. CA. 281 SCRA 492). it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. et al. Hence. the equitable remedy of reconveyance may be resorted to. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE A title over registered land cannot be defeated even by adverse. vs. CA.
The reconstitution of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of RA 26 denotes the restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. CA. Notice of hearings shall be sent to the RD and the LR Commissioner. The land has in fact been previously registered under Act 496 but the corresponding certificate of title has been lost or destroyed.. the proper remedy would be a petition for declaratory relief under Section 64 of the Rules of Court. Jude Dulay. 298 SCRA 388). Hence. 251 SCRA 509). (GSIS vs. ADVERSE CLAIM The purpose of the annotation of adverse claim is to protect the interest of a person over real property where the registration of such right or interest is not otherwise provided under the Torrens system. Hon. the names of adjoining owners and interested parties. GR No. the notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk. IAC. RECONSTITUTION Reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates in the office of the RD can be done only thru judicial proceedings. there is a serious or substantial controversy as to the ownership of the expanded area. If filed by some other person than the registered owner. the name of the registered owner. In other words. i. 253 SCRA 187). a sheriff's levy on property already covered by an adverse claim is considered subservient to said claim. Mere registration of adverse interest does not make such claim valid nor is it permanent in character because judicial determination of the issue of ownership is still necessary. 1990). Courts must proceed with extreme caution in proceedings for reconstitution of titles under RA 26. Notice of petition should be published in the Official Gazette and posted on the main entrance of the provincial and municipal building where the land is situated. A court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim and. (Heirs of Maria Marasigan vs. (Yu vs. This kind of controversy can only be heard in the exercise of the courts’ general jurisdiction. While the law states that the adverse claim is effective within 30 days. It does not affect the merits thereof. The essential requirements in the reconstitution of title are the following: 1. 250 SCRA 737). et al. the cancellation automatically being done by the Register of Deeds after the lapse of 30 days from registration is improper. July 2. 240 SCRA 737). A notice of adverse claim annotated on the title of a registered owner remains valid even after the lapse of thirty (30) days. the annotation thereof remains and cancellation is necessary. LIS PENDENS Once annotated upon the original copy of the title. A hearing must first be conducted wherein the parties are given the opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim. Aquino. CA. It is mandatory that: Aside from publication. Nov. the title is no longer subsisting. if found to be invalid. The notice of lis pendens is but an incident in an action. . To limit to 30 days the effectivity of an adverse claim will defeat the very purpose for which the law provides for the remedy of inscription of the adverse claim. CA. and where the Register of Deeds noting such facts has recommended the cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to LRC Circular No. It is intended merely to constructively advice or warn all people who deal with the property that they deal with it at their own risk and whatever rights they may acquire in the property are subject to the result of the action. 167. the actual owners and possessors of the land involved. It should avoid itself being unwittingly used as a tool of swindlers and impostors robbing someone of his title. CA. otherwise the inscription will continue as a lien on the title. 58694. greatest caution must be exercised in acting on such petitions. no effort should be spared to assure itself of the authenticity and due execution of petitioner's authority to institute the proceedings. 2. (Margolles vs. 28. occupants or persons in possession.LACHES Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier or negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. 230 SCRA 97). 32949. San Beda College of In reconstitution of allegedly lost certificate of title. the notice of adverse claim remains. warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or has declined to assert it. (Heirs of Pedro Pinoto vs. CA. (Santos vs. GR No. and should not only require strict compliance therewith but also establish the identity of every person who files the petition. CA. (Garbin vs.e. The notice should state the number of the lost or destroyed title. actual and personal notice be duly served to indispensable parties. (Rogelio Duarte vs. (Sajonas vs. As long as no petition for its cancellation has been filed. especially when it is filed after an inexplicable delay of 25 years. 1980). When it is conceded that some deficiencies exist in the formal requisites for the issuance of a transfer certificate of title covering a parcel of land with an increased or expanded area. 152 SCRA 253). the area and boundaries of the property and stating the date on which all interested parties must appear. order the cancellation of said adverse claim. Hence.
two conditions must be complied with. posting and service of notice as required by the court. Involuntary transaction like attachment and the like on unregistered land may now be registered in the Register of Deeds. 234 SCRA 455). 2. CA. 244 SCRA 693). Copy of the notice must also be sent by registered mail or otherwise to every person named therein or to the occupant or adjoining owners whose addresses are known. namely: 1. (City of Mandaluyong vs. (Calalang vs. privately owned lands When privately owned lands are to be expropriated. Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. (Leticia Ligon vs. CA. the execution of which has not been revealed. 350 SCRA 487) INTER ALIA “Among other things” Land Titles and Deeds RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY 1. EXPROPRIATION Under RA 7279. which disallows aliens to acquire lands. 2. Aguilar. where it was declared that a land registration court has jurisdiction to decide contentious and substantial issues after original registration. Both vendor and vendee are in pari delicto and the Courts will not allow protection to either party. the RTCs now have authority to act on questions after original registration with power to hear and decide substantial and contentious issues to avoid multiplicity of suits. Any question regarding registration in the Register of Deeds may now be elevated by way of consulta to the Land Registration Administration. Caguioa. The land registration court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue regarding the existence or non-existence of tenancy relationship under RA 3844 (Agricultural Reform Code. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented together with the instrument except in some cases or upon order of the court for Any lien annotated on the previous certificate of title which subsist should be incorporated in or carried over to the new TCT. a permanent record of landholdings and transactions thereon is maintained in order to prevent fraudulent claims to land by concealment of unregistered transactions. Hence. Velasco. 1529 ON THE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION OF UNREGISTERED LAND 1. 366 SCRA). (Ignacio vs. and 4. The same may be registered under the system of registration for unregistered land. lands for socialized housing are to be acquired by the government in the following order: 1. At the date of the hearing of the petition. Purpose – the legislative intent in providing a system of registration is to afford a mode of publicity so that persons dealing with real property may search records and thereby acquire security against instruments. 237 SCRA 122).. Ortigas vs. Natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Filipino citizenship may now acquire not more than 3 hectares of land if it is rural and not more than 5000 square meters if residential. (Ouano vs. lands owned by small property owners are exempt from expropriation for social housing. alienable lands 3. Cannot be used as evidence to prove title (Estate of Don Mariano de San Pedro. 95 SCRA 380). 246 SCRA 243). (Cloma vs. Court of Appeals. Real Purpose of Torrens System – to quiet title already existing and to stop forever any question as to its legality. the petitioner must submit proof of publication. 231 SCRA 88. Sale of lands to aliens is void as it violates the Constitution. (Act 3344) 3. (RA 8179) EFFECT OF P. Once title is registered. CA. 146 SCRA. as amended by RA 6389) since exclusive jurisdiction over such relationship was vested by law in the Court of Agrarian Relations. citing the leading case of Averia vs. 3. it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every document of record (Garcia vs. JURISDICTION The distinction between general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction when acting as a land registration court has been eliminated by Section 2 of PD 1529. unregistered lands or idle lands 4. 265 SCRA) 2.3. 234 SCRA 665).D. Republic of the Philippines. Effect – Recording of conveyance constitute notice to all whereas. The government may annul the sale at anytime because prescription does not run against the government (Lee vs. et al. Those not registered under the LRA are not considered registered at all. at least 30 days prior to the hearing. resorted to only when other modes are exhausted 2. government lands 2. EFFECT OF P. PD 1529 abolished the difference between the general jurisdiction of regular courts and the limited jurisdiction of the land registration court such that pursuant to Section 2 of PD 1529. 2. the court may issue a writ of possession to effectuate the result of a tax sale. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE LRA 1.D. 1529 ON SPANISH TITLES 1. the owner may rest secure without . CA and Iglesia ni Kristo. now the Regional Trial Court pursuant to BP 129. Hence.
NATURE OF LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS In rem. Private grant like donation. Relatedly.D. 195 SCRA). He cannot exercise personal judgment and discretion when confronted with the problems of whether to register an instrument on the ground that it is invalid as this is a function of the court (Almirol vs. Register of Deeds of Agusan. (Ching vs. 189). Judicial – voluntary and compulsory a. which contemplates not only material but also symbolic possession (Quimson vs. Gustilo. Valeriano. escheat. Caguioa. Manalo. only the government may initiate reclamation projects (Government vs. General function – Duty to register instrument presented for registration with all requisites for registration being present. Administrative – where government grants. 177 SCRA). 27. But forest land. Voluntary – Sec 14-39 P. there is a need for filing a new application for registration of the additional land and not merely awarding the application (Cureg vs. Director of Lands. Ministerial functions – He performs ministerial functions with reference to registration of deeds. 27 covers rice and corn lands (Sigre vs. 246 SCRA. sale. a decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on questions actually contended and determined but also upon all matters that might be litigated in the land registration proceedings (Cacho vs. Cabangis. 5. NCC. 2. Under RA 1899.. 709. Public grant such as homestead patent. 3. . 181 SCRA. NCC. 6. Rosete. even if it is stripped of trees and forest cover are not susceptible of private ownership much less of registration by private persons unless reclassified or released from forest to alienable and disposable land of the public domain by official proclamation (Director of Forest Management vs. which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the rivers and not from the sea (Ignacio vs. 199 SCRA) 2.D. National Grains Authority vs. 27 AND RA 6657 RA 6657 did not repeal or supersede P. encumbrances. 3-A and only the national government may undertake such projects (RP vs. 87 Phil. 000. Private lands – lands segregated from general mass of the public domain by any form of grant by the State and which are in possession of the original grantee or their successors in interest. 1529 b. While RA 6657 covers all public and private agricultural lands. or conveys lands by way of patent. 2. IAC. P. Delegated jurisdiction – RA 7691 allows inferior courts to hear and determine land registration cases where there is no controversy or where the value of the property does not exceed P100. 157 SCRA) OBJECT OF REGISTRATION Object of registration – Only real property is the object of registration. deed. TITLE BY EMANCIPATION PATENT OR GRANT UNDER P. under Art. Court of Appeals). instruments and the like (Baranda vs. Court of Appeals. Should accretion take place while application for registration is pending. LANDS SUBJECT OF ORIGINAL REGISTRATION 1. based on the generally accepted principle underlying the Torrens system wherein all the world are made parties defendants. alienates. property not recorded in the Register of Deeds will not prejudice third persons provided it is not registered in the name of third persons and that he has been in quiet andpeaceful possession thereof. or instrument must be registered in the Register of Deeds so as to be covered by the Land Registration Act. VARIOUS METHODS OF BRINGING LANDS UNDER THE OPERATION OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM 1. the national government granted to municipalities and chartered cities the authority to undertake and carry out reclamation projects but was revoked by P. Court of Appeals. 299 SCRA 199 – Cultural Center). it includes whatever may be found on its surface and under it. 2. 53 Phil 112). 165 SCRA). tax sale. International Corporate Bank. While land literally means the bare soil of the earth. 146 SCRA.D. PNB vs. Court of Appeals.D. Adverse possession or prescription 4. Descent or device – testate and intestate succession. et al. Reclamation – under the Philippine Law of Waters. Compulsory – instituted in Court by the State under the Cadastral Act (Act 2259) 2. free patent or sales patent under CA 141. P. 129 SCRA). 7. Court of Appeals.D. (Sec 103. RTC exercises plenary jurisdiction over all applications for any registration including improvement and interest thereon and over all petitions filed after original registration (Ignacio vs.waiting in the portals of the Court to avoid possibility of losing his land. Binoloy vs. Pasay city. etc. 22 SCRA). Accretion – to the owners of the land adjoining banks of rivers belong the accretion. Public agricultural land to which claimants have acquired incomplete title within the contemplation of section 48 of the Public Land Act. 524. Possession here is in accordance with Art. Involuntary alienation – such as expropriation proceedings. said grant. Averia vs. 1529) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO REGISTER LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION Recording is not indispensable to prove ownership. 108 Phil. execution sale. 269 SCRA) NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF RTC OVER REGISTRATION OF TITLE 1. FUNCTIONS OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS 1.D. THE DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING LAND TITLES 1.
exclusive. 2. CA and Manlapaz. Also. 216 SCRA). However. HOW IS POSSESSION PROVED? 1. c. 205 SCRA) Nature of proceedings in land registration under P. 2020. When the document on its face bears infirmity.D. P. DL Management Bureau vs. exclusive. 1945. 181 SCRA). and notorious possession of the land since June 12. BURDEN OF APPLICANT IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS He must show that he is the real and absolute owner of the property in fee simple and overcome the presumption that the land is a part of the public domain (RP vs. a. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under bona . 276 SCRA).D. publication once in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory and jurisdictional (Director of Lands vs. Omico Mining vs Vallejos. under Section 14. 2. 160 SCRA. Marzan. 146 SCRA. 209 SCRA). When the validity of the instrument sought to be registered is in issue pending in Court (Balbon vs. continuous. 202 SCRA). 1529 and the Public Land Act (CA 141) particularly Section 48 thereof are the same in that both are against the whole world. WHEN IS DEFAULT ORDER IMPROPER? Red Notes in Civil Law Where oppositor filed opposition but did not appear on date of initial hearing. Natividad vs. publication is never meant to dispense with the requirement of mailing and posting which are mandatory and jurisdictional (RP vs. IAC and ACME Plywood. May an applicant whose predecessor in interest was denied registration now apply for the registration of the same land? Yes. 106 SCRA. EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT All persons and the whole world except only those who had appeared and filed pleadings in the case are bound by said default order (Cachero vs. Santiago. 236 SCRA). notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership (Director of Lands vs. In petitions for confirmation of imperfect title it is required to show that the applicant is in open. Land is alienable and disposable (Director of Lands vs. visible. notorious and not clandestine. Court of Appeals. continuous. Buyco. Register of Deeds of Malabon vs. Open. apparent. 1945 (Sec 14. Lee. Under Sec 48. Marasigan. Court of Appeals. Sayo. Continuous when not interrupted or occasional. 1529 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in RP vs. A defective publication deprives the Court of jurisdiction and therefore lacks authority over the whole case and all its aspects (Po vs. provided that he has acquired an imperfect title thereto by open. To charge the whole world with knowledge of the application and invite them to take part in the case and assert and prove their right to the property. the land was already private lands (Director of Lands vs. Doldol) under a bona fide claim of ownership. 3. 197 SCRA. b. 1529 and the Public Land Act (CA 141) Nature of proceedings in land registration under P. Exclusive when possessor had exclusive dominion over the land and appropriate it to his own benefit (Director of Lands vs. P. the period within which to file petitions for judicial confirmation or administrative legalization of title had been extended to December 31. 191 SCRA). PLA possession must be accompanied by occupation since the two words are separated by the conjunction AND.D. Court of Appeals. WHAT IS THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SECURE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF TITLE OR ADMINISTRATIVE LEGALIZATION OF TITLE? Under RA 9176. d. Court os Appeals. continuous. RP. Doldol. 2. 40 SCRA. Extent of proof required of an applicant for registration 1. 295 SCRA.D.WHEN MAY REGISTER OF DEEDS DENY REGISTRATION OF VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENTS 1. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF PUBLICATION 1. it was improper for the court to declare him in default and the remedy is not appeal but certiorari (Director of Lands vs. 190 SCRA). Where there are more than one copy and owner’s duplicate and not all are presented. hence possession must not be by mere fiction or constructive possession. both take the nature of judicial proceedings and the decree of registration issued under both laws are conclusive and final. Pastor. MAY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS APPLY FOR REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS? Private corporations or associations are not allowed by the 1973 and 1987 Constitution but the prohibition does not apply if at the time of registration proceedings. the publication is defective (RP vs. Nature of possession – it is open when it is patent. 1529 and RP vs. 63 SCRA). 2. Confers jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court. 198 SCRA 219). Where actual publication of notice of initial hearing was after the hearing itself or where the Official Gazette containing the notice was released for publication only after said hearing. Register of Deeds of Ilocos sur. and the proceedings therein are governed by the same court procedure and laws of evidence. 28 SCRA). What is the required period of possession and occupation necessary to be proved? Since June 12. RTC Malabon. Director of Lands vs.
198 SCRA). Rodriguez. Arguelles. Fraudelent registration where LRA could not be used to perpetuate fraud (Bonales vs. Documentary evidence – must not only prove the identity of the land but also genuineness of title (Republic Cement Corp. 200 SCRA). hence LRA cannot exercise discretion but is duty bound to refer matter to the court per Sec 6(2) P. 1529 expressly states that the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases. 154 SCRA). PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND MAY CONSIST OF – 1. the inclusion of a portion of a lot not claimed is void ( Almarza vs. Buyco. Compromise agreement among the parties where they agreed that they have rights and interest over the land and allocated portions to each of them. REPORT OF LRA AND LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE PRESENTED If submitted later but not beyond one year after the issuance of decree. . quiets title thereto and it is conclusive upon all persons. WHEN MAY WRIT OF POSSESSION WILL ISSUE A writ of possession in land registration cases is a mere part judgment incident. 2. 3. Even if there is no opposition. 2. Writ of possession does not prescribe and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding enforcement of judgment by motions in civil cases has no application in land registration proceedings (Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. Rodriguez. Court of Appeals.D. Vano). University of the Philippines. 265 SCRA where P. Tax Declaration – if there are discrepancies of area and boundary in Tax Declaration and technical description such differences are common as measurements in Tax Declarations are based on more estimation rather than computation (Director of Lands vs. hence if he asserts ownership and submits evidence only for a portion of a lot. 216 SCRA). 236 SCRA). De Banuuar. 166 SCRA). Court of Appeals. Of Deeds vs.D. The court is empowered to wield its judicial power to compel LRA to speed up the investigation and submission of is report and recommendation (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. 301 SCRA). 56 SCRA). MINISTERIAL DUTY OF LRA Duty of LRA to issue decree of registration is ministerial. Court of Appeals.fide claim of ownership within the period required by law (since June 12. LR Administrator is not bound to issue decree if land had earlier been registered (Ramos vs. Exceptions to indefeasibility of title after one year from date of entry of decree 1. 3. 13 SCRA). 198 SCRA). Court of Appeals. Technical description duly signed by Geodectic Engineer (RP vs. 1529 provides that all conflicting claims of ownership in the land shall be determined by the court. c. 1945 or earlier). including the government and bars re-litigation after 1 year (Ylarde vs. 168 SCRA. Fontillas. Lichauco. vs. 2. 25 SCRA). 73 SCRA. WHAT EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO PROVE OWNERSHIP? 1. PROOFS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PRIVATE RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP 1.D. 68 SCRA. Survey plan approved by Director of Lands (RP vs. Presidential issuance and legislative acts (RP represented by Mindanao Medical Center vs. 244 SCRA). vs. International Hardwood & Veneer Corp. ORDER OF TRIAL SAME AS ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION Order of trial inland registration cases is the same as ordinary civil action (Rule 30. The judgment carries with it delivery of possession which is inherent in ownership and it may issue even if there is an appeal (Vencilao vs. Survey plan approved by Director of Lands (Republic Cement Corp. Spanish title – already inapplicable and may not be used as evidence (Intestate Estate of Don Mariano de San Pedro. 2. PROPERTY SUBJECT OF ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT Only property claimed by applicant can be adjudicated by the Court. applicant must prove his claim and submit his evidence and not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the opposition (Director of ands vs. Basis of court judgment Section 29 P. PNB. When a valid title already covers the land (Reg. 188 SCRA. Court of Appeals. 402 SCRA). Effect of Decree of Registration It binds the land. Tracing cloth plan and the blue print copies thereof (Director of Lands vs. However. 195 SCRA). Reyes. vs. b. 1997 Rules of Court). 42 SCRA). Court of Appeals. Judgment5 of the court shall be based on the evidence presented by the parties AND reports of LRA and Bureau of Lands. IAC.D. a. Sec 34 P. Testimonial evidence showing among others possession and occupation of the land in the manner and period prescribed by law. Director of Lands vs. Tax declaration and real tax payments – not conducive proof of ownership but indicia of possession (Ordoñez vs. Heirs of Isabel Tesalora. Ramos vs. 244 SCRA). 1529. 244 SCRA). IAC. the Court may still cause a change in the decision (Gomez vs. Rodriguez. Land not capable of registration (Martinez vs. 156 SCRA). 4. 892 was applied).
When buyer relied upon rights of vendee based on annotated transaction (Guererro vs.R. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT BUYERS NEED NOT GO BEYOND THE FACE OF THE TITLE 1. PNB vs. 156 SCRA. Transactions with banks and other financial institutions (Navarro vs. Court of Appeals. 3. 247 SCRA). 2.DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY REGISTRATION 1. Court of Appeals. Bel Air Village Association vs. Tomas. Court of Appeals. Absent such registration conveyance does not bind the land (Villaluz vs Neme. Dionisio. Ibarra. No. Court of Appeals. G. Court of Appeals. This rule also applies to sale on execution or foreclosure (Cempillo vs. Court of Appeals. 98 SCRA). 95 SCRA). 139 SCRA. INDEFEASIBILITY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Buyers and mortgages not required to go beyond certificate of title. Tomas vs. Involuntary – mere entry in the primary entry book sufficient notice to all even if owner’s duplicate copy is not presented to Register of Deeds. 7 SCRA). 39 SCRA. 174 SCRA). GSIS. . 198 SCRA). Pino vs. EFFECT OF REGISTRATION IN RD Registration of the document in the Register of Deeds is the operative act that transmits title. 129 SCRA. When purchaser neglects to make necessary inquiries and closes his eyes to facts which should have put a reasonable man on his guard (Egao vs. They are only charged with notice of burden on property which are noted on the face of the register or certificate of title (Ibarra vs. Santiago vs. 174 SCRA). 2. Dela Merced vs. Court of Appeals. 129 428. the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the certificate of title indicates in quest for any hidden defect (Centeno vs. Court of Appeals. When there is nothing on certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in ownership or encumbrance thereon. 365 SCRA. Voluntary – Innocent purchaser for value becomes registered owner the moment he presents and files a duly notarized document (deed of sale) and the same is entered in the primary entry book and at the same time presents duplicate owner’s copy and pays registration fees because what remains to be done lies not in his power to perform (Garcia vs. 98 SCRA). Second Laguna Development Bank. February 2003.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.