Land Titles: Case Doctrines

SECTIONS 1 TO 13 Moscoso v CA National Grains Authority vs IAC • "The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting avoid the possibility of losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not allowed. The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. Solid State Multi-Products v CA • registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a particulate property • registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership Traders Royal Bank v CA • The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely on the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further • Exception: banks and real estate companies can’t rely on the title itself • Aznar Brothers v Aying In constructive implied trusts, prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of said trust is not a condition precedent to the running of the prescriptive period 10-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registatrion of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, but if the person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession, the right to seek reconveayance which if effect seeks to quiet title, does not prescribe – since the 3 heirs all testified that they had never occupied it, it’s 10 years. • The rigid rule that the jurisdiction of the Land Registration Court -being special and limited in character and proceedings, does not extend to cases involving issues properly litigable in other independent suits, has time and again been relaxed in special and exceptional circumstances The proceeding is an action in rem – no personal notice to all clamaints of the res is necessary

Arceo v CA - PD1529 has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court RTC now has an authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title Personal notice to claimant of the land is not necessary because it is a proceeding in rem

-

Evangelista vs Santiago - PD892 divests the Spanish title of any legal force and effect in establishing ownership over real property – in the absence of an allegation in petitioner’s complaint that petitioner’s predecessor in interest complied with PD892, then in could be assumed that they failed to do so - Deadline of the use of Spanish Title: August 16, 1976 (6months) Intestate Estate vs. CA Under PD 892, the system of registration under Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish Titles should cause their lands to be registered under Land Registration Act within 6 months from date of effectivity or until August 16, 1976.

Kim Raisa O. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012

it is a ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a property in the name of a certain person. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . Torrens title of the latter enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity. it is well-settled that the issuance of such decree is not compellable by mandamus because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion. instruments and the like is ministerial in nature Balbin v Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur 1. The issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land Registration Office acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of the court and so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one. Noblejas vs. . said Titulo is inferior to the registered title of defendants Ocampo. Teehankee Any Bureau Director’s ruling is likewise appealable to the corresponding department head. Instances when the RD may refuse to register Title: 2. 3. LABURADA vs. When you fail to show all the copies of the title Invalid on its face When there is a pending case in the court where the validity of conveyance and character of the land is in question Document presented is merely a private instrument. the same provision will show that these are merely incidental to the nature of his administrative functions. Indeed. 4. under PD 892. And even if the resolution of the Commissioner is deemed judicial (quasijudicial is the proper term since it is an admin agency). especially when the decision had attained finality Chvez vs PEA The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain. Buhain and dela Cruz. Republic v CA .Registration does not vest a better right to the possession you already have The fact that you registered a property of public domain. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY Issuance of a Decree Is Not a Ministerial Act The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus. Since the Titulo was not registered under Land Registration Act.OCT in Register of Deeds supports the authenticity of title on ownership in property Baranda v Gustilo • The function of Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances. 4136. not notarized 5.Land Titles: Case Doctrines Titulo de Propriedad No. it is not converted to private lands SECTIONS 14 TO 34 Ong vs Republic Kim Raisa O. is inadmissible and ineffective as evidence of private ownership in special proceedings case. Toledo-Banaga v CA • As part of the execution process.

Cureg vs IAC . Hence.791 sqm from the original application. *the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical description duly certified as to their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are adequate to identify the land applied for registration.Section 14 merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed .when RA No. 14 provides that applicants for registration of title must prove: 1. 3990 was enacted. of the Philippines vs UP . a new publication of the amended application must be made. therefore. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal. the second court could no longer entertain the same Director of Lands vs Reyes Was the execution pending appeal applicable in a land registration proceeding? No. It is outside the commerce of men. but in fact excluded 292. 1 Kim Raisa O. Since the amendment in Parcel No. By the issuance of the decree. a new publication is not necessary.Need not be alienable and disposable since June 12. if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . convincing evidence. The execution had dangerous consequences. unless otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the government. strong. then no new publication is necessary. If the amendment INCLUDES an area of land not previously included in the original application. subject only to the existing concession. It made UP the absolute owner. the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with. 1945 or earlier International Hardwood and Veneer Co. as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory. Benin vs Tuason Amendment to Application Need Not Be Published if it Excludes Portions of Lands A publication of a new amendment to an application for registration is to give notice to all persons about the said amendment. Lopez vs De Castro . That they have been in OCEN possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12. and non-publication will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. Republic vs Munoz Best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands but blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. as published. it ceded and transferred full ownership to UP.Land Titles: Case Doctrines Sec. Also.alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and. the land is bound and title thereto quited De Buyser vs Director of Lands . The lower court acted without jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a decree of registration despite the timely appeal.a decree of registration cars all claims and rights which arose or may have existed prior to the decree of registration. not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons. But if the amendment EXCLUDES an area of land. relinquished and conveyed its rights and title to UP. And even if the amendment in Parcel No. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands under the public domain 2. the CLR cannot acquire jurisdiction over the parcel of land added to the original application. 2 did not include new portions of land. 1945 or earlier Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. and divested. it removed such lands from public domain. A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity. Republic vs Naguit .Where a party files an application for registration of a parcel of land which is already the subject of registration proceedings. Without new publication..

the land which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely mineral — once the mining claims were perfected. it did not cease to be so and become agricultural. after that. they had the right to transfer the same. you can’t lift order of general default (Sec. In the instant case. to Benguet and Atok. 3. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties on time. Lopez vs Enriquez Motion to lift order of general default prior to the entry of a final judgment becoming final and executor. the added area is too minimal to be of the decisive factor in the validity of OCT 735. even if only partly so. the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land. all of which have already been complied with in the case at hand. 26 of PD 1529) A movant. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. As long as mining operations were being undertaken thereon. Director vs CA The law used the term “shall” in prescribing the work to be done by the Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latter’s receipt of the court order setting the time for initial hearing. The land is thus converted to mineral land and may not be used by any private party. unlike an oppositor. CA 137 . such use may be discontinued by the State to enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. How to Prove if the land is alienable or disposable? 1. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. [EXCEPTION] Mendoza vs CA Under Section 29 of the Land Registration Act. And the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with. and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. Executive order Law or statute the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. as they did. By such act. without need of any further act such as the purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. for any other purpose that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken therein. don’t need to file to life the order of general default Republic vs CA The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. Presidential proclamation 2. against even Kim Raisa O. The classification must be categorical. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application. including the registered owner thereof. The reason is due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation. The said word denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.10 sqm). if at all. For the loss sustained by such owner. he is of course entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation proceedings.once minerals are discovered in the land. the government. because it was enclosed with a fence and was cultivated by those who were unlawfully occupying the surface. as already observed. or underneath. whatever the use to which it is being devoted at the time. It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting. the law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or the person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant.Land Titles: Case Doctrines increased the portion of land (by 27. As the land had become the private property of the locators.

occupants and those known to have interests in the property by the sheriff. but it is still mandatory to comply with mailing and posting De Castro vs Marcos Only the Solicitor General can file an opposition. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and registration. 12. Furthermore. 9. 4. upon payment of the prescribed fees. Promulgation of judgment by the Court. the following requisites should all be satisfied: 1.Land Titles: Case Doctrines Republic vs Marasigan OG is sufficient in complying with the publication requirements. the claim here is only noted on the survey plan. and such annotation cannot prevail over the actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor. the petitioner in land registration cases is not relieved of the burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed Republic vs Abrille For an applicant to have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a land to be originally registered under Act 496. Service of notice upon contiguous owners. 8. 5. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not. Gomez vs CA Kim Raisa O. Under the Land Registration Act. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . All claims of third persons to the property must be asserted in the registration proceedings. 3. 7. and 13.” A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. Director vs CA Notwithstanding absence of opposition from the government. 6. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the Court. Fernandez vs Abrotique Registered land under the Torrens System cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Hearing of the case by the Court. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owner's duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register of Deeds. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Commission. 10. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register of Deeds. “no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission. Filing of application for registration by the applicant. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and date and place of the hearing in the Official Gazette. 11. not a private person 2.

Spanish title can still prove possession but not ownership exception for the ground of prescription. Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public domain begin to run. the defect is cured and public policy prevails. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . Since the property is in the hands of a Filipino. and may no longer be the subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in cadastral proceeding Boromeo vs Descallar Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership Because respondent is not a holder in good faith whose ownership is not vested by the Torrens title. adverse possession for at least 30 years regardless of good faith or just title). once registered. This is subject to the December 31. The possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of title as soon as the land it covers is declared alienable and disposable. if it is a part of public domain. the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court. As long as a final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree. Vencilano vs Vano Kim Raisa O. The property was acquired by an alien who could not legally own it. This is an exception to the rule on the indefeasibility of a Torrens Title. 2020 deadline imposed by the Public Land Act. A Spanish title was not accepted to remove or quiet title. Republic vs Jacob Possession must not be a mere fiction OCEN plus OCCUPATION Malabanan vs Republic The Public Land Act merely requires possession since June 12. it is reverted back to the state In a quieting of title. Express declaration that the property is no longer intended for public service or for the development of national wealth = patrimonial (NCC 420 par 2) Public domain lands become patrimonial property or private property of the government only upon a declaration that these are alienable or disposable lands. Borromeo is entitled to the absolute ownership. Under the NCC. prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership over patrimonial property. Classification as alienable and disposable 2. who subsequently sold the same to Borromeo. a Filipino. Evengelista vs Santiago Action to declare the nullity of the Land Title is filed by a private individual Action for reversion can only be filed by the State through the solicitor general In an action for reversion. as amended by RA 9176 Forest lands has to be classified by the government as alienable and disposable Requirements for prescription: 1. 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession.Land Titles: Case Doctrines the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final decree of registration. Patrimonial property may be acquired through ordinary acquisitive prescription (possession for at least 10 years in good faith and with just title) or extraordinary acquisitive prescription (uninterrupted. petitioner should have equitable or legal title over the land. then the reversion is approved. becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible as a Torrens title. a homestead patent. together with an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth.

and of cause of action. as well as in the municipality building Merced vs CA When title to the land in a cadastral proceeding is vested? • the title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision or adjudication by the cadastral court. Expiration of the appeal: 15 days from the decision of the RTC. or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by two or more co-owners. sometimes by the Judiciary A property that has not been declassified as forest land is not susceptible of private ownership Republic vs CA Boundaries prevail SECTIONS 35 TO 38 Municipality of Santiago. of subject matter. (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties. A homestead patent. by publishing such notice in two successive issues of the Official Gazette which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the new land to be surveyed. All that the cadastral court may do is to make correction of technical errors in the description of the property contained in its title. Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null and void and should be cancelled. as well as the general public. the petition was not a bar to the issuance of the writ of demolition Republic vs Bacus Who has the power to re-classify the land? Exclusive prerogative of the EXECUTIVE. Cadastral Proceeding (Constructive Notice) Remedy: 1. (applies to all cases. can no longer apply because barred by prescription. Can’t re-litigate by final judgment = the court with jurisdiction Director vs Benitez it is necessary that notice thereof be given to those persons who claim an adverse interest in the land sought to be registered. The certificate of title would then be necessary for purposes of effecting registration of subsequent disposition of the land where court proceedings would no longer be necessary. and cannot thereafter be the subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral case. once registered under the Land Registration Act. motion to dismiss Pending the resolution of a case. After that period. the following requisites must be present: (a) The former judgment must be final. Duran vs Olivia a homestead patent once registered under the Land Registration Act can not be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and that any title issued thereon is null and void. becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title. Isabela vs CA Rule: a cadastral proceeding is one IN REM and any decision rendered therein by the cadastral court is binding against the whole world. parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already determined by final judgment Kim Raisa O. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . without such an appeal having been perfected. identity of parties.Land Titles: Case Doctrines In order that there may be res judicata. (c) it must be a judgment on the merits. and (d) there must be. Under this doctrine. between the first and the second actions. including land and cadastral proceedings) 2 Principles: 1.

and (2) as long as public land is alienable and disposable. already issued in the name of a person. (unless it is upon the request of the owner) Heirs of Luzuriaga vs Republic Here the identity and area of the claimed property are not the subjects of amendment but other collateral matters. or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his substantial rights. the 3 Manotok Cases a. Owner’s request 2 OCT – earlier title prevails Burden of proof on plaintiff – incontrovertible evidence b. necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands. one can still apply. and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title 2. what are the additional steps: .Land Titles: Case Doctrines 2. One title is preferred over the other iii. Errors ii. Heirs of Gonzaga vs CA. in the name of another. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . land registration case Director vs CA The defense of res adjudicata when not set up either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer. a new publication is not needed. The amendment in this case was not an amendment of the identity and area of the disputed lot.A counterclaim is considered an original complaint and the attack on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be considered as a collateral attack on the title Sarmiento vs CA 1 Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act Kim Raisa O. determination of “which one of the several conflicting registered titles shall prevail” 3. What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of land. Manotok Realty vs CLT Realty If the property is covered by 2 titles.Court to declare the final judgment (order LRA to issue registration) . is deemed waived. it cannot be the subject of a cadastral proceedings Limitation of Cadastral Court Jurisdiction: 1. a Cadastral Court proceeding declaring a land to be public is not the final decree contemplated in the law1 that would bar subsequent application. As long as Applicant: (1) complies with Section 48 of CA 141. provided such corrections do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner. c. Veranga vs Republic After trial.LRA to issue decree of registration and title . Cadastral court can no longer acquire jurisdiction on property with Torrens Title Exceptions: i. IN Rem proceedings – cleanses the defect of the title from the very beginning Pasino vs Monterroyo A Counterclaim is Not a Collateral Attack on the Title . the earlier title prevails it is only after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect.Decision .RD to issue the certificate of title SECTIONS 39 TO 50 MWSS vs CA. divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in his favor. Once a property is already registered.

it is indirect or collateral when. Titled 2. The third party complaint for cancellation of TCT being in the nature of an original complaint for cancellation of TCT. Action for cancellation of TCT Register vs PNB The indefeasibility of titles under the Torrens System could be claimed only if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land does not exist. Manotok vs Barque The LRA is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its legal effect. in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief. and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. This is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a certificate 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 land is in existence. Not capable of registration 4. On the other hand. and it appears from the official records that the subject property is already covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of another person. the corrective recourse lies with the courts. Exceptions to indefeasibility of title: 1. whether wholly or partly. but NOT the certificate of title laches can apply one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered. the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title were derived. there is nothing further the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition. and the person in whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the same. the same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it. or enjoin its enforcement. modified. If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA. for he has no true title thereto. it constitutes a direct attack of such TCT Erasusta vs CA Attack on a certificate of title is prohibited Gregorio Araneta vs RTC An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title. Degollacion vs Register of Deeds of Cavite Where two certificates of title purport to include the same land. an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law Cabrera vs CA the title can be attacked directly. Republic vs CA Kim Raisa O. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . and not with the LRA. Even assuming that the previously issued title is obviously fraudulent or attended by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced by the legal system.Land Titles: Case Doctrines A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint because it is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff’s complaint. Fraud or misrepresentation 3. Where issuance of the title was attended by fraud. that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title. the reason for the rule being.

as amended which provides that "in all cases of registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud. to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. without prejudice. Kim Raisa O. Uy Ateneo Law School 2012 . It is independent and distinct from that authorized by Section ." This is a remedy which is available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. which has for its purpose the reopening of the decree of title. within one (1) year from its issuance. on the ground of fraud. however.Land Titles: Case Doctrines one of the exceptions of indefeasibility of title: - If the land is incapable of registration even if it is in the hands of an innocent purchaser in value Bornales vs IAC If title was obtained through fraud – indefeasibility cannot be invoked Arguelles vs Timbancaya The action to annul the title or the action for reconveyance has its basis in Section 55 of Act 496.38 thereof.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful