You are on page 1of 2

LAND TITLES | ATTY.

PADILLA | ATENEO LAW SCHOOL | Table by Frances Lipnica Pabilane (2015)

Topic and Relev ant Prov isions


A ssignment |

Case Title
Republic v. C our t of A ppeals

Facts and Keyw ords


* v alidity of the registration of 885 hectares of public forestal land located in M ulanay , Q uezon;

Case Doctrine
* It is axiomatic that public forestal land is not registerable. Its inclusion in a title, w hether the title be issued during the S panish regime or under the Torrens sy stem, nullifies the title. * P ossession of public forestal lands, how ev er long, cannot ripen into priv ate ow nership * S panish titles are not indefeasible * Incidentally , it may be mentioned that P residential Decree N o. 892 effectiv e F ebruary 16, 1976 discontinued the use of S panish titles as ev idence in land registration proceedings. The mere circumstance that proof of title, or ev idence of ow nership, had been introduced during the trial before the M unicipal C ourt w ould not depriv e said court of jurisdiction to rule on the question of w ho had the prior phy sical possession. * A s permitted in the abov ecited S ection 88 of R.A . N o. 296, the plaintiff in an ejectment case may introduce such ev idence for the purpose of prov ing the character of his possession and the amount of damages he is claiming for unjust depriv ation of such possession. 14 The petitioners w ere only try ing to prov e their right to possession and damages by establishing their right of ow nership. * We hold that the action of the heirs of E nanoria to recov er the 500 square meters portion of their registered land does not prescribe and cannot be barred by laches. N or can A lecha, the adjacent ow ner, acquire that 500-square-meter area by prescription because it is cov ered by a Torrens title * S ection 46 of the Land Registration Law , now section 47 of the P roperty Registration Decree (P D N o. 1529 effectiv e June 11, 1978), prov ides that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered ow ner shall be acquired by prescription or adv erse possession" . A dv erse, notorious and continuous possession under a claim of ow nership for the period fixed by law is ineffectiv e against a Torrens title. * S ection 2 of P residential Decree N o. 1529 (The P roperty Registration Decree) w hich took effect on June 11, 1979, regional trial courts acting as land registration courts now hav e exclusiv e jurisdiction not only ov er applications for original registration of title to lands, including improv ements and interests therein, but also ov er petitions filed after original registration of title, w ith pow er to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. A ct 496 (Land Registration A ct), specifically S ection 110 thereof, the court of first instance, sitting as a land registration court, has the authority to conduct a hearing, receiv e ev idence, and decide controv ersial matters w ith a v iew to determining w hether or not the filed notice of adv erse claim is v alid. * The w ell-know n rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing w ith a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the torrens certificate of title and to dispense w ith the need of inquiring further, except w hen the party concerned has actual know ledge of facts and circumstances that w ould impel a reasonably cautious man make such inquiry . 9 A torrens title concludes all controv ersy ov er ow nership of the land cov ered by a final degree of registration. 10 O nce the title is registered the ow ner may rest assured w ithout the necessity of stepping into the portals of the court or sitting in the mirador de su casa to av oid the possibility of losing his land. 11 * Thus, it is a settled rule that the defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title does not extend to a transferee w ho takes it w ith notice of the flaw s in his transferor's title. If at all, the petitioners only acquire the right w hich their v endors then had. It is a w ell settled rule that registration under the Torrens S y stem does not protect the riparian ow ner against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or riv er. A ccretions w hich the banks of the riv er may gradually receiv e from the effect of the current become the property of the ow ners of the banks.

DISC O NT INUA NC E O F T H E USE OF SP A NISH T IT LES; GO VERNM ENT C A NNO T BE EST O P P ED BY A C T S O F IT S A GENT S A ssignment 1 | NA T URE O F IN

C hing v. M alaya

REM P RO C EEDINGS
A ssignment 1 | P URP O SES O F Umbay v. A lecha

unclassified public forest * nullify ing the judgment of the municipal court in a forcible entry case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction * R.A . N o. 296, as amended, w hich w as the law then in force. That law allow ed the municipal court to receiv e ev idence upon the question of ow nership in ejectment cases, but only w henev er it w as necessary to do so for the purpose of determining the character and extent of possession and damages for detention. * They discov ered that its 500-square-meter portion w as occupied by P lacido A lecha, the ow ner of the adjoining Lot N o. 5281 w hich is its southeastern

T H E T O RRENS SY ST EM
A ssignment 1 | A BA NDO NM ENT P NB v. Inter national

boundary * cancellation of annotations of an encumbrance on its transfer certificates of title * personal notice is not necessary and w hat gov erns is the general rule

OF

LIM IT ED

JURISDIC T IO N

in S ection 3 of A ct 3135, as amended, w hich directs the posting of notices of the sale in at least three (3) public places of the municipality w here the property is situated, and the publication thereof in a

RULE
A ssignment 1 | EFFEC T S

OF

C or por ate Bank P hilippine National

Bank

v.

REGIST RA T IO N: Q UIET S T IT LE

T O LA ND, ET C .
A ssignment 1 | T IT LE M ERELY C O NFIRM S P RE-EXIST ING RIGH T ; NO T M EA NS FO R A C Q UIRING O WNERSH IP A ssignment 1 | T O RRENS

C our t of A ppeals Bor nales v. C our t of A ppeals

new spaper of general circulation in said municipality . * Does the presumption of conjugality of properties acquired by the spouses during cov erture prov ided for in A rticle 160 of the C iv il C ode apply to property cov ered by a Torrens certificate of title in the name of the w idow ? * The P N B had a reason to rely on w hat appears on the certificates of title of the properties mortgaged. F or all legal purposes, the P N B is a mortgagee in goodfaith for at the time the mortgages cov ering said properties w ere constituted the P N B w as not aw are to any flaw of the title of the mortgagor. husband and w ife; mistress; mistress fraud sold to relativ e; relativ e not buy er in good faith, knew

V iajar v. C our t of A ppeals

about the transactions During the pre-trial it w as prov en that during the cadastral surv ey in 1926, the tw o lots w ere separated by the S uague Riv er and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and the old riv er bed w ere in the possession of the S pouses Ladrido and that the plaintiffs hav e nev er been in actual phy sical possession. * Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens S y stem (in relation to the dimunition of the area of their land because the plaintiffs are contending that A rt 457 must be interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands)

P RO T EC T IO N NO T A BSO LUT E A ssignment 1 | T IT LE DO ES NO T M A KE H O LDER T H E T RUE O WNER OF P RO P ERT Y

C or onel v. IA C

The point is that the 1/3 undiv ided portion of the priv ate respondents ov er Lot N o. 1950-A w as mistakenly included in the transfer certificate of title of M ariano M analo.

DESC RIBED T H EREIN


A ssignment 1 |

NO T OF

Galloy v. C our t of A ppeals

C O NC LUSIVE

EVIDENC E

O WNERSH IP O VER ILLEGA LLY INC LUDED LA NDS


A ssignment 1 | LA ND A LREA DY Republic v. C our t of A ppeals Whether the land already registered as patrimonial property of the S tate (for the use of the Bureau of P ublic S chools) can still be registered in the name of T ongson v. Dir ector of another person. The A ct of C ongress of July 1, 1902 classified mangrov e (manglares) lands as agricultural public lands. A fter the A dministrativ e C ode of 1917, mangrov e sw amps w ere included in the category of public For estr y A mpoloquio forest. * The M unicipality of Bansalan, on its part, filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the nine

The simple possession of a certificate of title, under the Torrens S y stem, does not necessarily make the possessor a true ow ner of all the property described therein. If a person obtains a title, under the Torrens sy stem, w hich includes by mistake or ov ersight land w hich cannot be registered under the Torrens sy stems, he does not, by v irtue of said certificate alone, become the ow ner of the lands illegally included. * The petitioner is bound to recognize the lien in fav or of the priv ate respondents w hich w as mistakenly excluded and therefore not inscribed in the torrens title of the land of his predecessors-ininterest. The foregoing conclusion does not necessarily w reak hav oc on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title. F or, mere possession of certificate of title under the Torrens S y stem is not conclusiv e as to the holder's true ow nership of all the property described therein for he does not by v irtue of said certificate alone become the ow ner of the land illegally included. In a more recent case, the case of Lola v s. C ourt of A ppeals S ec. 6 of A ct 496 prov ides that no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered ow ner shall be acquired by prescription or adv erse possession. The action to recov er registered land does not prescribe. A land registration court is w /o jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already registered in an earlier registration case, & that the 2nd decree entered for the same land is null & v oid.

REGIST ERED A S P A T RIM O NIA L P RO P ERT Y O F T H E ST A T E, NO T REGIST RA BLE


A ssignment 1 |

M A NGRO VE

WO N the parcel of land, in the possession of the oppositor (M acario) & his predecessors in interest, as far back as 1905 w hen mangrov e sw amps w ere still classified as agricultural lands, may now be considered as timber domain w hich is inalienable and not disposable.
"M angrov e sw ams w here only trees of mangrov e species grow , w here the trees are small and sparse fit only for firew ood purposes and the trees grow ing are not of commercial v alue as lumber, do not conv ert the land into public land. S uch lands are not forest in character. They do not form part of the public domain." S ince the land w as forestal, it w as inalienable & non-disposable public land. Respondent knew that he could not directly acquire the lots since they w ere part of the public domain, so he got access to the land indirectly . H e realized that the only w ay he could w as to clothe the datu w / a color of ow nership so that the datu could subsequently transfer the land to respondent. Respondent accomplished this in a haphazard manner. H e caused the issuance of a tax declaration to the uneducated datu & manipulated the alleged sale w /in 1 day . This explains w hy there w as no concrete ev idence of the alleged deed of sale, w hy the contested lots could not be accurately identified, & w hy priv ate respondent nev er raised a hand w hen the tow nsite w as being dev eloped. The Torrens S y stem could not be used to perpetrate fraud. But ev en assuming for the sake of argument that this contention is correct, the fact remains that the areas in dispute (those cov ered by permits issued by the Bureau of F isheries) w ere found to be portions of the foreshore, beach, or of the nav igable w ater itself. A nd, it is an elementary principle of law that said areas not being capable of registration, their inclusion in a certificate of title does not conv ert the same into properties of priv ate ow nership or confer title on the registrant. * Lakeshore land or lands adjacent to the lake, like the lands in question must be differentiated from foreshore land or that part of the land adjacent to the sea w hich is alternately cov ered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides * S uch distinction draw s importance from the fact that accretions on the bank of a lake, like Laguna de Bay , belong to the ow ners of the estate to w hich they hav e been added (G ov 't. v . C olegio de S an Jose, 53 P hil. 423) w hile accretion on a sea bank still belongs to the public domain, and is not av ailable for priv ate ow nership until formally declared by the gov ernment to be no longer needed for public use (Ignacio v . Director of Lands, 108 P hil. 335 [1960]). But said distinction w ill not help priv ate respondents because there is no accretion show n to exist in the case at bar. O n the contrary , it w as established that the occupants of the lots w ho w ere engaged in duck raising filled up the area w ith shells and sand to make it habitable. I. F orestry A dministrativ e O rder 12-2 is the controlling law A . U nder that administrativ e order, only administrativ e or judicial titles may be used as ev idence for registration pursuant to the Rev ised A dministrativ e C ode (RA C ). B. S aid order deleted the use of titles granted by the S panish sov ereignty . C . The order has the force of law 1. The RA C empow ers the Director of F orestry to issue regulations necessary to conserv e or protect the pubic forests. II. S panish titles may be lost through prescription A . The rules on prescription (10 y ears for good faith/30 y ears for bad faith) apply . III. Kinds of S panish titles A . titulo real or roy al grant B. concession especial or special grant; C . composicion con el estado or adjustment title the S C said that P iadecos title w as equiv alent to this. D. titulo de compra or title by purchase E . informacion posesoria or possessory information title, w hich could become a titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title. IV . P iadecos title is dubious A . A djustment titles, under the S panish law , must be subscribed by the Direccion G eneral de A dministracion C iv il B. P iadecos title w as signed by the prov incial board of Bulacan, not by the Direccion G eneral V . P riv ate ow nership of land must be prov ed not only by genuineness of the title, but also w ith a clear identity of the land claimed. A . In cases inv olv ing S panish titles, the land must be measured in hectares and not in mass. B. Thus, the area must be fixed. C . When P iadeco applied for a rejoinder, it stated that the area of the property is 74,000 Doldol could not hav e acquired an imperfect title to the disputed lot since his occupation of the same started only in 1959, much later than June 12, 1945. N ot hav ing complied w ith the conditions set by law , Doldol cannot be said to hav e acquired a right to the land in question as to segregate the same from the public domain. Doldol cannot, therefore, assert a right superior to the school, giv en that then P resident C orazon A quino had reserv ed the lot for O pol N ational S chool. The law , as presently phrased, requires that possession of lands of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945 or earlier, for the same to be acquired through judicial confirmation of imperfect title * The P resident is authorized, from time to time, to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral lands.20 A lienable and disposable lands of the public domain are further classified according to their uses into (a) agricultural; (b) residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productiv e purposes; (c) educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) reserv ations for tow n sites and for public and quasi-public uses. * To prov e that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positiv e act of the gov ernment such as a presidential proclamation or an executiv e order; an administrativ e action; inv estigation reports of Bureau of Lands inv estigators; and a legislativ e act or a statute. * N either can petitioners properly inv oke S ection 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject property w as declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent ev idence that is no longer intended for public use serv ice or for the dev elopment of the national ev idence, conformably w ith A rticle 422 of the C iv il C ode. The classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under A rticle 420(2) of the C iv il C ode. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. We do not hesitate in holding that the complaint in question should hav e been dismissed, if only because as an action to nullify and cancel the torrens titles in dispute, it is not the proper remedy under the Land Registration A ct and the jurisprudence thereunder concerning the indefeasibility of the decrees of registration on w hich said titles are based after one y ear from their issuance, w hich took place w ay back, at the latest in 1931, and as a suit for damages, it cannot prosper against herein petitioner w ho w as not the original registrant but a mere second transferee, as ev idenced by the annotation on the said titles themselv es. Inasmuch as it is alleged in the complaint that the lands claimed by priv ate respondent on behalf of his supposed principals are alleged to constitute part of the estate of Don M ariano S an P edro w hose estate is under administration in S pecial P roceedings N o. 312-B of the C ourt of F irst Instance of Bulacan, the suit can be filed only by the judicial administrator of that estate or another person duly authorized by the probate court. It is to be stressed likew ise that the Land Registration A ct commands that the applicant shall also state the name in full and the address of the applicant, and also the names and addresses of all occupants of the land and of all adjoining ow ners, if know n; and, if not know n, it shall state w hat search has been made to find them | By fraud is meant actual fraud, dishonesty of some sort. This meaning should be giv en to the w ord 'fraud' in section 38 of the Land Registration A ct. P roof of constructiv e fraud is not sufficient to authorize the C ourt of Land Registration to reopen a case and modify its decree. S pecific acts intended to deceiv e and depriv e another of his right, or to in some manner injure him must be alleged and prov e'. The court held that the registration of land cannot serv e as a protecting mantle to cov er and shelter bad faith. A lthough the prov isions of law just cited apparently authorizes any person claiming any kind of interest to file an opposition to an application for registration, it is our v iew nev ertheless that the opposition must be based on a right of dominion or some other real right independent of, and not at all subordinate to, the rights of the G ov ernment. | that their right, that of being foreshore lessees of public land, is completely subordinate to the interests of the G ov ernment, and must necessarily be predicated upon the property in question being part of the public domain. E v en assuming that E stanislao M ay uga did not hav e sole and exclusiv e title to the land and that he had been holding the shares corresponding to other co-ow ners in trust for them, his application for registration of the land certainly w as a renunciation of the coow nership, and since that unilateral assertion of indiv idual ow nership w as not opposed by the petitioners until considerably more than ten (10) y ears had lapsed, w hatev er claim the latter might hav e had as co-ow ners had ceased to exist, prescinding from the fact that since they are deemed to hav e had constructiv e notice of the registration case, a proceeding in rem resulting from the publication of notice thereof in the O fficial G azette on A pril 15, 1937, their omission to oppose the same can only be construed as an abandonment or non-existence of ground to contest it, and the judgment therein rendered had acquired immutability and incontestability w hen no appeal w as taken therefrom w ithin the period set therefor. In the instant case, the appellate court found that, w hile it may be true that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest, A nastacio S ibbaluca, hav e been in continuous and adv erse possession of the land in dispute for more than 30 y ears, they w ere not bona fide occupants thereof. | Besides, it is an established rule that an applicant for registration is not necessarily entitled to hav e the land registered in his name simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of the land. H e must show , ev en in the absence of opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute ow ner, in fee simple. O rder of G eneral Default in Land Registration C ase N o. N -345; LRC Record N o. 34956, in respect of oppositor-appellant F lorencio P . P unzalan is hereby set aside, and let this case be remanded to the trial C ourt for resumption of hearing and rendition of the corresponding judgment. | In the case at bar, no judgment has as y et been rendered by the low er C ourt, and much less has any decree of registration been issued. The fixing of a P etition by P unzalan is decidedly premature. Indeed, in the absence of any decision and/or decree, there is nothing to be rev iew ed or reopened. | A n O rder of G eneral Default is interlocutory in character, subject to the control of the C ourt, and may be modified or amended as the C ourt may deem proper at any time prior to the rendition of the final judgment. the burden is upon him to show that he is the real and absolute ow ner, in fee simple of the lands w hich he is attempting to hav e registered | It is the duty of the courts, ev en in the absence of any opposition, to require the petitioner to show , by a preponderance of ev idence and by positiv e and absolute proof, so far as it is possible, that he is the ow ner in fee simple of the lands w hich he is attempting to hav e registered. | In the w ords of the S upreme C ourt, the registrable rights must be grounded in w ell-nigh incontrov ertible ev idence and based on positiv e and absolute proof. | The Land Registration A ct, A ct 496 requires the presentation of muniments of title for registration under the regular prov isions of said law . The applicant, w hich alleged ow nership in fee simple since S panish times, could hav e presented old S panish grants such as a titulo real or roy al grant, a concession especial or special grant, a composicion con el estado or adjustment title, or a titulo de compra or title through purchase. The applicant could hav e presented a titulo posesorio or possesory information title, w hich is not a title in fee simple but is nonetheless prima facie ev idence of possession under concept of ow nership from the date of the title and for the required period under the law . A n applicant seeking to establish ow nership ov er land must conclusiv ely show that he is the ow ner thereof in fee simple,[7] for the standing presumption is that all lands belong to the public domain of the S tate, unless acquired from the G ov ernment either by purchase or by grant, except lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors since time immemorial, for such possession w ould justify the presumption that the land had nev er been part of the public domain or that it had been priv ate property ev en before the S panish conquest.[8] | A naly zing the ev idence submitted, w e note that the applicant failed to prov e the fact of possession by itself and its predecessors in interest for at least thirty (30) y ears before the filing of the application. | "The applicant must present specific acts of ow nership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements w hich are mere conclusions of law than factual ev idence of possession."[20] "A ctual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion ov er it of such a nature as a party w ould naturally exercise ov er his ow n property ."[21] P E RIO D O F E N F O RC E M E N T O F DE C RE E : the issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty both of the judge and of the Land Registration C ommission; failure of the court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the reason that no motion therefor has been filed can not prejudice the ow ner, or the person in w hom the land is ordered to be registered. | There is nothing in the law that limits the period w ithin w hich the court may order or issue a decree. The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory in character and does not need to be asserted or enforced against the adv erse party A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected. If ev er there w as an entry of judgment in this case dated S eptember 14,1984, this had the effect of finally disposing and putting an end to the controv ersy w ith regard to the priv ate respondents herein as among themselv es and not insofar as the gov ernment's interest on the land is concerned. A s to it, the judgments hav e not y et attained finality because its appeal w as perfected on time, before the lapse of the period w ithin w hich to appeal. The adjudication of the land in a registration or cadastral case does not become final and incontrov ertible until the expiration of one y ear after the entry of the final decree.

LA NDS A RE REGIST RA BLE, NO T

BEING FO REST LA NDS


A ssignment 1 |

LA NDS

v.

C our t

of

FO RM ING

P A RT

OF

P UBLIC

(9) parcels of land included in the petition for registration w ere reserv ed for tow nsite of, and

DO M A IN,

NO T

NEC ESSA RILY

actually occupied by , the M unicipality of Bansalan. * WO N respondent could hav e v alidly purchased the

REGIST RA BLE
A ssignment 1 |

FO RESH O RE OF NO T

A ppeals Republic v. A yala Y C ia

LA NDS

A ND

P O RT IO NS SEA ,

T ERRIT O RIA L REGIST RA BLE


A ssignment 1 |

property from Datu Julian Bagobo. * increasing its area from 9,652.583 hectares (as ev idenced by TC T N o. 722) to 12,000 hectares, by taking or including therein lands of public dominion. * It has been established that certain areas originally portions of the nav igable w ater or of the foreshores of the bay w ere conv erted into fishponds or sold by defendant company to third persons. The Republic of the P hilippines filed C iv il C ase N o. 2044 w ith the low er court for the annulment of the certificates of title issued to defendants A manda Lat V da. de C astillo, et al., as heirs/successors of M odesto C astillo, and for the rev ersion of the lands cov ered thereby (Lots 1 and 2, P su-119166) to the S tate. It w as alleged that said lands had alw ay s formed part of the Taal Lake, w ashed and inundated by the w aters thereof, and being of public ow nership, it could not be the subject of registration as priv ate property . * P iadeco is a company engaged in logging. It claims to be the ow ner of a 72,000-hectare land in Bulacan, as ev idenced by a titulo de propriedad, dated 1894. P iadeco applied for and w as issued a

LA KESH O RE

Republic v. Lat

LA NDS, DIST INGUISH ED FRO M

FO RESH O RE LA NDS
A ssignment 1 | VA RIO US KINDS Dir ector of For estr y v. M unoz

O F SP A NISH T IT LES; FO REST

C ertificate of P riv ate Woodland Registration in 1963, w hich conv erted a portion of the Bulacan land into priv ate w oodland. * N aw asa director ordered the cancellation of P iadecos certificate because it

LA NDS,

RESERVES,

A ND

encroached

bey ond w hat

w as allow ed

in the

certificate. P iadeco actually cut trees in the A ngat and M arikina w atershed area, w hich w as prohibited. P iadeco then settled w ith N aw asa.* P iadeco sought to renew its certificate but it w as denied by the

T IM BERLA NDS,

NO T

A sst. Director of F orestry . The latter ruled that the S panish title is no longer recognized and should hav e nev er been used to apply for a C ertificate. Is

P iadecos title r egistr able with the Bur eau REGIST RA BLE
A ssignment 2 | P O SSESSIO N Republic v. Doldol

of For estr y? NO
In v iew of Doldol's refusal to v acate, O pol N ational S chool filed in 1991 a complaint for accion possessoria w ith the Regional Trial C ourt of C agay an de O ro. The trial court ruled in the school's fav or and ordered Doldol to v acate the land. O n appeal, the C ourt of A ppeals rev ersed the decision of the court a quo, ruling that Doldol w as entitled to the portion he occupied, he hav ing possessed the same for thirty -tw o y ears, from 1959 up to the time of the filing of the complaint in 1991.

A ND O C C UP A T IO N REQ UIRED OF A LIENA BLE LA NDS OF A ND T HE DA T E

DISP O SA BLE

P UBLIC DO M A IN M UST

BA C K SINC E JUNE 1 2 , 1 9 4 5 O R EA RLIER


A ssignment 2 |

P RO P ERT Y

H eir s of M alabanan v. Republic

SO UGH T

TO

BE REGIST ERED

NEED O NLY BE A LIENA BLE A ND

DISP O SA BLE A T T H E T IM E T H E

A P P LIC A T IO N

FO R

REGIST RA T IO N IS FILED A ssignment 2 | A P P LIC A T IO N,

P ons Realty C or p v. C A

WH EN LA ND FO RM S P A RT O F

* [T]he more reasonable interpretation of S ection 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. * It is clear that the ev idence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that M alabanan has acquired ow nership ov er the subject property under S ection 48(b) of the P ublic Land A ct. There is no substantiv e ev idence to establish that M alabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest hav e been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their ow n ev idencethe Tax Declarations they presented in particularis to the y ear 1948. Thus, they cannot av ail themselv es of registration under S ection 14(1) of the P roperty Registration Decree. The complaint of priv ate respondent P rudencio G . F alcis, in representation of sev eral persons, seeking the nullification and cancellation of certain torrens titles issued in the name of petitioner, P RC . F alcis is sueing in his capacity as an A dministratorP lenipotentiary -E xtraordinary and as A ttorney -in-fact of the heirs of the E state and administrator of their respectiv e shares as E xtra-Judicially settled among the heirs themselv es. | Respondents seek to annul the title of the petitioner, P RC , and declare the heirs represented by F alcis as the law ful and legal ow ners

EST A T E O R A DM INIST RA T IO N A ssignment 2 | FO RM A ND

Fr ancisco v. C A

of the subject land. N otice to dead persons; creek | It w ill thus be seen that the applicants did not state the true adjoining ow ners w ith the deliberate intention of prev enting notices of their application for registration to be sent to petitioner F austa F rancisco and to her sister P aula F rancisco, and in that w ay prev ent petitioner from appearing in the land registration case and file an

C O NT ENT S
A ssignment 2 | WH O M A Y FILE Leyva v. Jandoc

opposition to their application for registration. o M anuela Jandoc applied for registration of 3 lands in Dadiangas, G en. S antos, C otabato. o The Ley v a spouses objected to such registration say ing that they continuous hav e been in peaceful and

O P P O SIT IO N;

VIS-A -VIS SEC .

possession of the lands sought to be registered. o The gov ernment also objected to the registration stating that the lands are part of public domain. o The Ley v a spouses w ere not allow ed by the court to continue their case against Jandoc. The Ley v a's support their claim upon a foreshore lease. They do

15, PD 1529
A ssignment 2 | FA ILURE T O V da. De C ailles v. M ayuga

not hav e the right to bring a case against Jandoc. * . Inv oking the aforementioned 1937 registration

proceedings, Dominador M ay uga asked for the

O P P O SE

C O NSIDERED

AS

issuance of a decree cov ering the land in his fav or,

as the only

son and forced heir of E stanislao

A BA NDO NM ENT
A ssignment 2 | M ERE A BSENC E Lar angan v. C A

O F O P P O SIT IO N DO ES NO T BY IT SELF REGIST RA T IO N; C O URT


A ssignment 2 |

WA RRA NT RULES OF

WH EN TO T HE

Y abut Lee v. P unzalan

M ay uga. The appellants cannot be rigidly tasked to adhere to the prov isions of S ection 16, Rule 46 of the Rules of C ourt as to w hat an appellant's brief should contain, for the reason that the rules contained in the Rules of C ourt are applicable to land registration cases only in a suppletory character and w henev er practicable and conv enient; 1 4 -a and that said rules of procedure are to be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy , and inexpensiv e determination of ev ery action and proceeding. F lorencio P unzalan filed a "P etition for Reopening and/or Rev iew " on the claim that applicants had committed fraud in not disclosing in their A pplication that he is the ow ner of a house standing on the lots applied for, that he has usufructuary rights ov er said properties, and pray ed that the P etition be admitted, the case reopened and a new trial ordered so that he could hav e his day in C ourt. The question herein w hether the petitioner may register certain parcels of land, sev en in number, or w hether it consists of inalienable timberlands and consequently , non-registerable is a question, so it has been held, that is factual in nature. | During the w ar, the records of the Bureau of F orestry w ere lost and/or destroy ed together w ith the records of the applicants on their claims ov er these lands. Because of w hich, the Director of F orestry on January 26, 1952, w rote a letter (E xhibit "19"-G ov 't.) requesting the applicants to furnish the office of the Director of F orestry copies of their title or documents ev idencing ow nership of the lands subject of these cases. | The applicant also applied for the benefits of the P ublic Land A ct. U nder the methods for registration of title in S ec. 48 of the P LA , there must be proof of either: (1) A title w hich already exists and only has to be confirmed by the C ourt and ordered registered; or (2) A n imperfect title under S ec. 48, or open, continuous, exclusiv e, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ow nership for at least thirty y ears immediately preceding the filing of the application. "A pplicant Tabangao Realty , Inc. attached to its application its A rticles of Incorporation, the tracing cloth plan of the lots, blue print copies of said plan, technical descriptions of the lots, Deeds of S ale, A ssessment C ertificate, Tax Declarations for the three lots and Tax C learances. | The issue raised is w hether respondent Tabangao Realty , Inc. has registerable title ov er three (3) parcels of land situated in Tabangao, Batangas C ity applied for While the best ev idence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes w as the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands, blueprint copies & other ev idence could also prov ide sufficient identification. F or as long as the other ev idence contains all the details & information necessary for a proper & definite identification of the land sought to be registered, thereby serv ing the purpose for w /c the original tracing cloth plan is required.. A P P E A L: We hold that the decision of M arch 24, 1938 had long become final and executory as no appeal w as taken therefrom. The certification of the acting prov incial land officer of M asbate, dated M arch 8, 1960, recites that no "appeal has been taken by the Director of Lands or any priv ate oppositors from the decision rendered." ; A n appeal w as not perfected by the mere notation, "C on mi exception." The judgment rendered in a land registration case becomes final upon the expiration of thirty day s to be counted from the date on w hich the party appealing receiv es notice of the decision. S ol G ens C ontentions: its appeal on July 16, 1986 w as filed on time, w hich is w ithin the prescribed period of fifteen (15) day s from its receipt of the copies of the decisions the property in question is public land and therefore, substantial justice requires that such appeal be allow ed | The request of the S olicitor G eneral for the fiscal to represent the former and to appeal did not make the fiscal counsel of the Republic. O nly the S olicitor G eneral w hose office, "as the law office of the G ov ernment of the Republic of the P hilippines", is the entity that is empow ered to "represent the G ov ernment in all land registration and related proceedings". Thus, the 15 day s should be reckoned from the time the S olicitor G eneral's O ffice w as apprised of the decision or order and not from the time the special counsel or fiscal w as serv ed w ith the decision. the issuance of a w rit of possession is only a matter of course if nothing in the past has been issued in fav or of the registered ow ner. | there is no period of prescription as to the issuance of a w rit of possession. | a w rit of possession may be issued not only against the person w ho has been defeated in a registration case but also against any one adv ersely occupy ing the land or any portion thereof during the land registration proceedings * C adastre w ere claimed and applied for by the spouses Tomas Rodil and C atalina C ruz. * O riginal C ertificate of Title w as issued to the applicants * The cadastral court gav e due course to the petition and set the case for hearing, w here oral and documentary ev idence w ere presented by the petitioning heirs of A lejandro A bes. * heirs of A lejandro A bes filed an action against the registered ow ners for the reconv ey ance of title, claiming that Tomas Rodil and his w ife procured registration of the land "thru fraud, misrepresentation and the use of falsified deeds of sale." Tomas Rodil and C atalina C ruz filed a petition for the issuance of a w rit of possession asking that they be placed in possession of the lots and that the heirs of A lejandro A bes be ev icted therefrom.

O P P O SIT O R P A RT IC IP A T E

A LLO WED DESP IT E

O RDER O F GENERA L DEFA ULT 2 | BURDEN O F


A ssignment

Gutier r ez H er manos v. C A

P RO O F

A ND

Q UA NT UM

OF

P RO O F REQ UIRED A ssignment 2 | BEST EVIDENC E

Republic v. C A

O N IDENT IT Y O F LA ND A ssignment 2 | FINA LIT Y O F JUDGM ENT ; WH EN A P P EA L NO T DEEM ED P ERFEC T ED; DEC REE

H eir s of C r istobal M ar cos v. De

O F REGIST RA T IO N, WH EN A ND BY WH O M ISSUED; P ERIO D FO R ENFO RC EM ENT O F DEC REE 2 | WH EN


A ssignment Banuvar Republic

v.

A ssociation

JUDGM ENT C O NSIDERED FINA L;

VIS-A -VIS SEC . 1 5 2 9


A ssignment 2 |

WRIT

OF

Benevola de C ebu Lucer o v. Loot

the fact that the petitioners hav e instituted, more than one y ear after the decree of registration had been issued, an ordinary action w ith the C ourt of F irst Instance attacking the v alidity of the decree on the ground of fraud, is not a bar to the issuance of the w rit of possession applied for by the registered ow ners. | if the w rit of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the deliv ery of possession of the land to the successful litigant therein, a w rit of demolition must, likew ise, issue, especially considering that the latter w rit is but a complement of the former w hich, w ithout said w rit of demolition, w ould be ineffectiv e. 4. The 5-y ear limitation rule for execution, on motion, of judgments does not apply to special proceedings, like a cadastral proceeding (most important) The judgment may be enforced w ithin fiv e y ears by motion, and after fiv e y ears but w ithin ten y ears by an action (S ection 6, Rule 39) refers to civ il actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as land registration cases. | Writ of possession can be issued against persons not specifically named as parties in a cadastral proceeding w hich is a proceeding in rem. | A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against ev ery body , including the respondents herein, w ho are deemed included in the general order of default entered in the case | 3. The right of a buy er of registered land to ask for a w rit of possession does not prescribed.

P O SSESSIO N, WH EN ISSUED A S A M A T T ER O F C O URSE; UNT IL WH EN A VA ILA BLE; WRIT OF

DEM O LIT IO N M A Y A LSO ISSUE A S A LO GIC A L C O M P LEM ENT A ssignment 2 | UNT IL WH EN WRIT O F P O SSESSIO N M A Y BE ISSUED; 5 -Y EA R P ERIO D FP R
Rodil v. Benedicto

EXEC UT IO N O F JUDGM ENT NO T A P P LIC A BLE P RO C EEDINGS, TO LIKE SP EC IA L LA ND

REGIST RA T IO N C A SE

A ssignment

EFFEC T

OF

Benin v. T uazon

In other w ords, the area of the six parcels of land claimed by the plaintiffs is only a little ov er tw o per

DEC REE

OF

REGIST RA T IO N; SUBST A NT IA L

cent (2% ) of the aggregate area of P arcel 1 and P arcel 2. But the decision of the trial court nullified O riginal C ertificate of Title N o. 785, w ithout any

A M ENDM ENT S, REQ UIREM ENT S

A ssignment 2 | SEC . 6 , RULE 3 9

Realty Sales Enter pr ise v. IA C

NO T

A P P LIC A BLE

TO

ENFO RC EM ENT O F DEC REE O F

REGIST RA T IO N
A ssignment 3 A ssignment 3 Fule v. Legar e Balbin v. Register of Deeds of

qualification. Reconstitution: The w hole theory of reconstitution is to reproduce or replace records lost or destroy ed so that said records may be complete and court proceedings may continue from the point or stage w here said proceedings stopped due to the loss of the records. The law contemplates different stages for purposes of reconstitution. | If the records up to a certain point or stage are lost and they are not reconstituted, the parties and the court should go back to the next preceding age w here records are av ailable, but not bey ond that E milia Legare - adopted son - lack of prudence transferred title to son - son sold to third party C ornelio Balbin - donation - sale - presentation of

Without a new publication the registration court can not acquire jurisdiction ov er the area or parcel of land that is added to the area cov ered by the original application, and the decision of the registration court w ould be a nullity insofar as the decision concerns the new ly included land. | We believ e that this difference of 27.10 square meters is too minimal to be of decisiv e consequence in the determination of the v alidity of O riginal C ertificate of Title N o. 735. It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that only in cases w here the original surv ey plan is amended during the registration proceedings by the addition of lands not prev iously included in the original plan should publication be made in order to confer jurisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area that w as added after the publication of the original plan. * U nder A ct N o. 496, Land Registration A ct, (1902) as amended by A ct N o. 2347 (1914), jurisdiction ov er all applications for registration of title to and w as conferred upon the C ourts of F irst Instance of the respectiv e prov inces in w hich the land sought to be registered is situated. * Jurisdiction ov er land registration cases, as in ordinary actions, is acquired upon the filing in court of the application for registration, and is retained up to the end of the litigation. The issuance of a decree of registration is but a step in the entire land registration process; and as such, does not constitute a separate proceeding. | If they fail to ask for reconstitution, the w orst that can happen to them is that they lose the adv antages prov ided by the reconstitution law " (e.g. hav ing the case at the stage w hen the records w ere destroy ed). The title w ith adopted son's name is conclusiv e as to third party . Lack of any suspicious item on its face. S ale is v alid. Duplicates should all be presented; the copies should contain the same information; Torrens | E xception: 3 instances w hen the Register may deny registration of v oluntary instruments: a) When there are more than one copy of the ow ners duplicate certificate of title and not all such copies are presented to the Register of Deeds b) Where the v oluntary instrument bears on its face an infirmity c) Where the v alidity of the instrument sought to registered is in issue in a pending court suit (Balbin v . Register of Deeds Ilocos S ur) S antos C amacho (first sale v alid) the ow ner is Dev elopment Bank of the P hilippines (S antos C amacho mortgaged the property to DBP ) | S ince both purchasers apparently hav e acted in good faith, the sale made to S antos C amacho w ould be the v alid one considering that w hen A mposta sold the same land to the M angaw ang bros after the 1st sale to S antos, he had nothing more to sell ev en if the title he surrendered to them is one issued cov ering the same property . In legal contemplation therefore, A mposta sold a property he no longer ow ned, and hence the transaction is legally ineffectiv e. We hav e laid the rule that w here tw o certificates of title around issued to different persons cov ering the same land in w hole or in part, the earlier in date must prev ail as betw een original parties and in case of successiv e registrations w here more than one certificate is issued ov er the land, the person holding under the prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the person w ho rely on the second certificate. The purchaser from the ow ner of the later certificate and his successors, should resort to his v endor for redress, rather than molest the holder of the first certificate and his successors, w ho should be permitted to resort secure in their title. O w nership should therefore v est in the respondent Republic of the P hilippines because it w as first in possession of the property in good faith. If any recourse is still av ailable to the petitioners, it definitely is not against the Republic of the P hilippines. Their claim for satisfaction on w hich w e do not rule at this time may be addressed only to M arciana Trinidad w ho, for reasons still to be discov ered, sold the same land once, and then once again, to separate purchasers. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that a partial execution of the judgment in C iv il C ase N o. 3083 prior to the final determination of C aram's petition in G .R. N o. L-28740 w ould be a proscribed legal absurdity . S uch partial execution, if allow ed, w ould indubitably entail the cancellation of C aram's title and w ould unquestionably hav e been legally premature and impermissible at that time since the v alidity thereof still had to be resolv ed by this C ourt. C onsequently , the ten-y ear period for the execution of said judgment commenced to run only on F ebruary 12, 1982 w hen the decision deny ing C aram's petition became final and executory , and the execution on motion of petitioners in 1983 in C iv il C ase N o. 3083 w as not time-barred. When they bought land from Kalaw w ithout the title, they should hav e filed for an adv erse claim; v endee and mortgagee are not expected to do more research w hen there is nothing suspicious on the face of the title (the title w as also in the name of the v endor); H ad they filed an adv erse claim, P edro Dinglasan w ould not hav e been able to obtain cancellation of F elisa Kalaw 's certificate of title and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in his name. They w ere, thus, negligent, and their negligence w as the proximate cause of their loss. mortgage v alid; bank not required to research on history of the title; E v ery registered ow ner receiv ing a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration and ev ery subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for v alue and in good faith shall hold the same free from all encumbrances not noted on the title. (S ec. 50, P D N o. 1529) When transfer certificates of title w ere issued in fav or of the transferees (the donees and the purchaser) nothing w as said therein about the land hav ing been reserv ed for a public open space. P ersons dealing w ith a property cov ered by a Torrens C ertificate of Title are not required to go bey ond w hat appears on the face of the title There is nothing either in P residential Decree N o. 2 w hich may be said to justify appellants' claim that said decree granted the ow nership of said lands to them and their successors by title. A pparently , appellants w ere misled or induced to believ e that they acquired the parcels of land in question w hen the w hole country w as declared by the prev ious regime as a land reform area. C apt. F austino C . C ruz based his alleged true and sole ow nership of the disputed land on the compromise agreement. | The compromise agreement did not prov ide for an outright transfer of title to the beneficiaries (including the 3,000 square meters allotted to C apt. C ruz), but subjected said transfer to suspensiv e conditions, namely , deduction of P 250,000 from the amount that may be due the "Deudors;" after deliv ery to the petitioner of the lots marked "refund" shall hav e been affected; and after the subdiv ision plan is approv ed by the N ational P lanning C ommission and the Bureau of Lands. | T he compr omise

A ssignment 3

Ilocos Sur Development

Bank

of

the

duplicate Titles under H omestead Law and C adastral A cts; first priority ; can also be characterized as double sale; 2 titles are v ested on the same land, same registrant | H omestead P atent and the other one is

A ssignment 3

P hilippines v. M angawang Gatiaon v. Gaffud

v ia C adastral P roceeding record; constructiv e notice; presumption of know ledge of ev ery fact; this presumption is irrebutable; the record of mortgage is indispensable to its v alidity ; lot has been mortgaged and remortgaged, the bank is supposed to know the technical descriptions of the lot and know that the titles refer to the same lot P etitioners claim the property by right of inheritance from their parents. The Republic say s the land w as donated to it on July 26, 1977. A n action for recov ery of title to or possession of real property or an interest therein can be brought only w ithin ten y ears from the date the cause of action accrues. pending litigation

A ssignment 3

Ber gado v. C our t of A ppeals

A ssignment 3

H eir

of

C lar o

Laur eta

v.

A ssignment 3

Inter mediate A ppellate C our t Roxas v. Dinglasan

person w ho bought from ow ner v . person w ho

bought from a person falsify ing a public document;

A ssignment 3

P hilippine

National

Bank

v.

mortgagee in good faith and for v alue F r. Title ov er the land - P ublic open space not

A ssignment 3

Inter mediate A ppellate C our t Natalia Realty C or p. v. V allez

annotated on the title - donated to S uarez unlaw ful occupants; 5 civ il cases consolidated;

A ssignment 3

J.M . T uason & C o. v. C our t of

summary judgment that mer e possession of whatever length cannot defeat the impr escr iptible title to the holder of r egister ed T or r ens T itle to r eal pr oper ty, and that r egister ed r eal pr oper ty under the T or r ens system cannot be acquir ed by acquisitive pr escr iption.ejectment --> action for recov ery of possession --> Renosa built construction on the property and argued that he obtained the property from C ruz | Issue is whether pr ivate

agr eement did not pr ovide for an outr ight tr ansfer of title to the beneficiar ies (including the 3 ,0 0 0 squar e meter s allotted to C apt. C r uz), but subjected said tr ansfer to suspensive conditions, namely, deduction of P 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 fr om the amount that may be due the "Deudor s;" after deliver y to the petitioner of the lots mar ked "r efund" shall have been affected; and after the subdivision plan is appr oved by the National P lanning C ommission and the Bur eau of Lands.
We cannot discern in any of them any specific act indicating any participation of the petitioners in w hatev er fraud might hav e attended the original transaction betw een the parents of priv ate respondents and J.O . Wagner. | section 5 5 of the Land

A ssignment 3

A ppeals M edina v. C hangco

r espondent Renosa's pr edecessor -innter est in the disputed pr oper ty namely, C apt. C r uz, acquir ed a valid r ight to own and possess said land a r ight that he couldhave legally tr ansfer r ed to Renosa to entitle the latter a better r ight of possession against the admitted r egister ed owner of the land.through fraud; property ow ned C omplaint; obtained

by parents w ho are part of the minority in Benguet;

Registr ation A ct that although an or iginal owner of a r egister ed land may seek the annulment of a tr ansfer ther eof on the gr ound of fr aud, such a r emedy, however , is "without pr ejudice to the r ights of any innocent holder for value" of the cer tificate of title. If only because (1) petitioners did not acquire
the property in question from Wagner but from the Leungs and this transaction betw een Wagner and the Leungs took place in 1917, or four y ears after the alleged fraudulent execution of the transfer in fav or of Wagner: (2) the transfer or conv ey ance to the petitioners took place only in 1932 or 19 y ears after the sale to the Leungs by Wagner; and (3) the complaint below w as filed only in 1969, more than 50 y ears after the first transaction, it is unbeliev able that the herein petitioners could hav e taken part in any manner in either the transfer from the parents of the priv ate respondents to Wagner as wv ell as transfer from ,Wagner tois the Leungs. E en if the signature forgery and sale v oid, the mortgage is v alid. S TILL insofar as innocent third persons are concerned the ow ner w as already the mother (F e S . Duran) inasmuch as she had already become the registered ow ner. Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent and

fiv e of the heirs w ere remov ed from the complaint

A ssignment 3

Dur an

v.

Inter mediate

(ev en against the suit) C irce Duran --> w ent abroad --> deed of sale executed in fav or of her mother --> mother mortgaged the property to tiangco --> w rote to register of deeds informing that she had not giv en authority to her mother --> mortgaged foreclosed C irce S . Duran claims that the Deed of S ale in fav or of her mother F e S . Duran is a forgery , say ing that at the time of its execution in 1963 she w as in the U nited S tates. O n the other hand, the adv erse party alleges that the signatures of C irce S . Duran in the said Deed are genuine and, consequently , the mortgage made by F e S . Duran in fav or of priv ate respondent is v alid. A mor tgagee has the r ight

forged document of sale may become the root of a v alid title if the certificate has already been transferred from the name of the true ow ner to the name indicated by the forger What is impor tant is that at the time the mor tgage was executed, the mor tgagees in good faith actually believed Fe S. Dur an to be the owner , as evidenced by the r egistr ation of the pr oper ty in the name of said Fe S. Dur an| w here innocent third persons rely ing on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued, acquire rights ov er the property , the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate for that w ould impair public confidence in the certificate of title; otherw ise ev ery one dealing w ith property registered under the torrens sy stem w ould hav e to inquire in ev ery instance as to w hether the title had been regularly or irregularly issued by the cour t. | also bar r ed by laches: should have filed

A ssignment 3

A ppellate C our t Republic of the P hilippines v.

to r ely on what appear s in the cer tificate of title and, in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to look beyond the cer tificate and investigate the title of the mor tgagor appear ing on the face of said cer tificate.
C onrado de Lara (P atent) lot in N ov eleta --> deed of sale w ith mortgage in fav or of the sisters of S t. John the Baptist --> Bautista filed complaint against de Lara, alleging she is the ow ner; attained lot from cadastral proceeding; that she declared it in pay ment for tax declarations --> Upon investigation

action when the building per mit was even under her mother 's name; should have inter vened in the mor tgage pr oceedings - BUT SH E DID NO T
S isters: "herein defendant-mov ant is innocent purchaser for v alue and in good faith and as such it has acquired a title ov er the property in question w hich is perfectly v alid and legally unassailable and indefeasible . . . . --> M otion to dismiss by sisters w as dismissed. A n

innocent pur chaser for value is "one who buys the pr oper ty of another , without notice that some other per son has a r ight to, or inter est in, such pr oper ty and pays a full and fair pr ice for the same, at the time of such pur chase, or befor e he has notice of the claim or inter est of some other per son in the pr oper ty. Where innocent third persons, rely ing on the correctness of the
certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights ov er the property the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation w ould be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for ev ery one dealing w ith property registered under the Torrens sy stem w ould hav e to inquire in ev ery instance w hether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. 6 months from judgment is entered; if no appeal, judgment shall be entered in the book of entries; petition for relief must be accompanied by show ing of fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence; petition for relief is premised on equity ; M ere forgetfulness of a party is not sufficient to set aside a judgment of default It w ill be noted that the essential requisites or elements for the allow ance of the reopening or rev iew of a decree are: (a) that the petitioner has a real or dominical right; (b) that he has been depriv ed thereof; (c) through fraud; (d) that the petition is filed w ithin one y ear from the issuance of the decree; and (e) that the property has not as y et been transferred to an innocent purchaser; A N Y P E RS O N M A Y F ILE , N O T N E C E S S A RILY O N E C LA IM A N T; must show actual fraud and not just constructiv e fraud; should av er facts and not mere conclusions of law To justify the setting aside or rev iew of a decree of registration under S ection 38 of A ct N o. 496, the party seeking relief must allege and prov e, inter alia, that the registration w as procured through fraud actual and extrinsic. It has been held in this connection that if the fraud alleged in the petition to set aside the decree is inv olv ed in the same proceedings in w hich the party seeking relief had ample opportunity to assert his right, to attack the document presented by the applicant for registration and to cross-examine the w itnesses w ho testified relativ e thereto, then the fraud relied upon is intrinsic. The fraud is extrinsic if it w as employ ed to depriv e a party of his day in court, thus prev enting him from asserting his right to the property registered in the name of the applicant A ct of 1948 amended by RA 2613. S ection 88 of the law allow s Justices of the peace to sit as C adastral courts, say ing : P rov ided, how ev er, That justices of the peace may , w ith the approv al of the S ecretary of Justice, be assigned by the respectiv e district judge in each case to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases cov ering lots w here there is no controv ersy or opposition, or contested lots the v alue of w hich does not exceed P 5,000... The appellants contend that the judgment should be set aside because the C adastral court did not law fully acquire jurisdiction ov er the property . They av erred that the decision of the Justice of the P eace C ourt w as null and v oid for w ant of jurisdiction, because the lot w as a controv erted lot, the v alue of w hich exceeded (P 5,000.00); The court ruled that the petition w as meritorious and should not hav e been dismissed off hand by the C F I. H ow ev er, it did not make a ruling on its ow n because the facts about w hether or not the land truly w as incontrov ertible w ere not y et prov en; they should be giv en their chance at a trial to prov e their case. C ase w as remanded to C F I.

C our t of A ppeals, De Lar a, St.

A ssignment 4

John the Baptist Sister s Dir ige v. Bir anya

conducted by the Bur eau of Lands, it has been ascer tained that Fr ee P atent No. 0 1 6 9 3 7 , and its cor r esponding or iginal cer tificate of title, wer e er r oneously and fr audulently issued to C onr ado F. de Lar a thr ough misr epr esentation of facts by stating in his application that the land applied for is not claimed or occupied by any other per son but is a public land when in tr uth and in fact said par cel is claimed by and cover ed by sur vey plan P su-1 0 4 8 7 9 in the name of Rober to Bautista.
petition for relief dismissed - 6 months reglementary period has lapsed; defendant: begin to toll from

A ssignment 4

Rublico v. O r ellana

finality of judgment, 30 day s; appeal for an order of dismissal of a petition for annulment of a judgment and/or rev iew of a decree of registration of tw o cadastral lots allegedly

procured through fraud; O rellana sole claimant, A ssignment 4 Fr ias v. Esquivel Rublico did not file; order of general default co-ow ners, sold, refused to reconv ey ; reopen the

A ssignment 4

Republic v. de Kalintas

decree of registration based on fraud rev iew of cadastral decree; M ati, Dav ao; Lopez;

A ssignment 4

Rur al Bank of Sar iaya v. Y acon

through fraud w ith the aid of Justice of P eace certificate of title cancelled; authority to mortgage

A ssignment 4

M aquiling v. Umadhay

dispute w e are asked to resolv e refers to one-third share originally pertaining to E nriique and w hich he sold to herein plaintiff w ho failed to register the sale

A ssignment 4

Esconde v. Bar longay

in the proper registry . P etition for Writ of

P ossession;

complaint for

reconv ey ance; alias w rit of possession; w rit of

A ssignment 4

V da de C abr er a v. C our t of

possession; restraining order, preliminary injunction it is true that by themselv es tax receipts and declaration of ow nership for taxation purpsoses are not incontrov ertible ev idence of ow nership, they become strong ev idence of ow nership acquired by prescription w hen accompanied by proof of actual

A ssignment 4

A ppeals Gicano v. Gegato

A ssignment 4

Sotto v. T eves

A ssignment 4

M anar paac v. C abanatan

possession of the property ; BA RRE D BY LA C H E S ; co-ow nership; original ow ners died; intended to transfer not 1/2 but only 1/3 share; But the action instituted by the plaintiffs Rosa G egato, et al. w as not one to declare the deed of sale of A ugust 23, 1952 v oid ab initio, for lack of cause or object in accordance w ith A rticle 1409 of the C iv il C ode, w hich is really imprescriptible, but to annul it on account of fraud, on the theory of constructiv e trust, w hich prescribes in ten (10) y ears. A tty . F ilemon S otto, married to Rallos, cesti que trust; registered lot either in the name of his w ife alone to the prejudice of the other co-ow ners; M arecelo S otto denied that there w as any trust relation betw een A tty . S otto and Rallos; titling of lots done in capacity as trustee and not as absolute ow ner; TRE M E N DO U S S O C IA L A N D P O LITIC A L IN F LU E N C E / The express trusts disable the trustee from acquiring for his ow n benefit the property committed to his management or custody , at least w hile he does not openly repudiate the trust, and makes such repudiation know n to the beneficiary or cestui que trust. / A dv erse possession in such a case requires the concurrence of the follow ing circumstances: (a) that the trustee has performed unequiv ocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust; (b) that such positiv e acts of repudiation hav e been made know n to the cestui que trust and (c) that the ev idence thereon should be clear and conclusiv e. / The claim that the heirs of C oncepcion Rallos are guilty of laches and are estopped from claiming the properties deserv es scant consideration, for in fiduciary relationship, the beneficiaries hav e the right to rely on the trust and confidence reposed in the trustee. fraudulent misrepresentation; changed the cause of action from declaration of nullity to

The rule applicable to this controv ersy , w ith the exception thereto, is w ell settled. Where the certificate of title is in the name of the mortgagor w hen the land is mortgaged, the innocent mortgagee for v alue has the right to rely on w hat appears on the certificate of title. In the absence of any thing to excite or arouse suspicion, said mortgagee is under no obligation to look bey ond the certificate and inv estigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate. A lthough A rticle 2085 of the C iv il C ode prov ides that absolute ow nership of the mortgaged property by the mortgagor is essential, the subsequent declaration of a title as null and v oid is not a ground for nullify ing the mortgage right of a mortgagee in good faith. N E G LIG E N C E A M O U N TIN G TO BA D F A ITH F O R F A ILU RE TO IN Q U IRE WH O IS IN TH E P O S S E S S IO N O F TH E LA N D P RIO R TO M O RTG A G E U nder the circumstances the U madhay could not claim conclusiv eness of w hat appeared on the face of the certificate of title; it w as not in E riberto's name and his self-serv ing declaration that he w as P az M aquiling's sole heir could not be av ailed of by them in derogation of the share of the other heir E nrique G umban or of the latter's transferee, the petitioner herein; TITLE A C Q U IRE D IN G O O D F A ITH A N D F O R V A LU E IN DE F E A S IBLE Land Registration proceeding is an in rem proceeding; decree of registration obtained by fraud, only one y ear to file a petition for rev iew ; after one y ear, it w ill be incontrov ertible; action for reconv ey ance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful ow ner of land w hich has been w rongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconv ey the land to him; RE C O N V E YA N C E TO S H O W TH A T TH E P E RS O N WH O S E C U RE D RE G IS TRA TIO N IS N O T TH E RE A L O WN E R TH E RE O F ; DO E S N O T S E E K TO S E T A S IDE TH E DE C RE E BU T O N LY TO TRA N S F E R F RO M RE G IS TE RE D O WN E R TO RE A L O WN E R; action for reconv ey ance based on fraud, 4 y ears from the discov ery w hich is w hen title is registered C O -O WN E RS H IP WO S IG N A TU RE , DID N O T BE A R TH E LA TTE R'S S H A RE ; TH E DE F E N S E O F IN DE F E A S IBILITY O F TH E TO RRE N S TITLE DO E S N O T E XTE N D TO A TRA N S F E RE E WH O TA KE S TH E C E RTIF IC A TE O F TITLE WITH N O TIC E O F A F LA W IN H IS TITLE . TH E P RIN C IP LE O F IN DE F E A S IBILITY O F TITLE IS U N A V A ILIN G WH E RE TH E RE WA S F RA U D TH A T A TTE N DE D TH E IS S U A N C E O F TH E F RE E P A TE N TS A N D TITLE S ; prescription applies w hen the person claiming to be the ow ner is N O T in actual possession of the land; N O T BA RRE D BY P RE S C RIP TIO N BU T BA RRE D BY LA C H E S ? :) A n action to recov er an immov able from a defendant allegedly holding it under a

constructiv e trust prescribes in 10 y ears, counted from the issuance of title to said

defendant. / Trial court has discretion to dismiss prescription-barred actions. * F ilemon S otto by v irtue of his marriage to C armen Rallos w as only as much as the trust on the shoulders of the tw o husbands of C oncepcion Rallos, M ariano Tev es and M ariano C amara, and this trust is not the trust defined in our C iv il C ode on express trust. * N ot being the absolute ow ner thereof, C armen Rallos could not legally conv ey their ow nership by including them in their w ill. * We must ov errule petitioner's stand that the trust w as expressly repudiated by the parties although he makes capital of the fact of registration of the properties in the names of C armen Rallos and M aria F adullon V da. de Rallos, contending strongly that such registration is ev idence of repudiation of the express trust. * The acts, on the contrary , w ere secretiv e and fraudulent assertions of exclusiv e ow nership. * That the deed of sale supposedly asserting a claim of ow nership and transfer thereof w as kept under seal of secrecy cannot be considered as unequiv ocal acts of repudiation of the trust and of the co-ow nership. A lthough the title to the lot w as finally consolidated in the name of C armen Rallos thru this secret manner, We must regard the registration to be for the benefit of the other co-heirs w ho cannot be prejudiced by such furtiv e and stealthy act. RE G IS TRA TIO N WA S S E C RE TLY, C A NNO T BE C O N S IDE RE D AS

RE C O N V E YA N C E ; one y ear period if issued under public land grants should be from the issuance of A ssignment 4 V da. De C ar r eon v. C ar tagena P ublic P atent complaint to remov e a cloud to title; IS S U E : there can be no reconv ey ance because nev er allege ow nership and fraud S pouses O cson; A ssurance F und subsidiarily liable

A ssignment 4

T r easur er of the P hilippines v.

for damages sustained by the priv ate respondents;

C our t of A ppeals

Law aan Lopez; the real Law aan Lopez, impostor;

LAND TITLES | ATTY. PADILLA | ATENEO LAW SCHOOL | Table by Frances Lipnica Pabilane (2015)

RE P U DIA TIO N P ossession since time immemorial carries the presumption that the land had nev er been part of the public domain or that it had been a priv ate property ev en before the S panish conquest. * In this case, the land occupied had become, by operation of law , priv ate property - the only lacking element is judicial sanction. G iv en such, the remedy of reconv ey ance is clearly actionable since there is sufficient cause due to the property being w rongfully and erroneously registered in another's name. The goal of reconv ey ance is not to defeat the indefeasibility of title. Rather, its goal is just to return the land to its proper ow ner. plaintiffs do not fall under the class of innocent title holders contemplated in the prov isions on compensation from the assurance fund; H E H A D N O RIG H T O V E R TH E S A M E BE C A U S E H E C O U LD N O T H A V E A C Q U IRE D TH E RIG H TS O F P A TA LE O N C A RRE O N WH O H A D A LRE A DY TRA N S F E RRE D H IS RIG H TS TO A N TO N IO M A G U IN S A WA N ; order w ithout due process is null and v oid * The first situation is clearly inapplicable as w e are not dealing here w ith any omission, mistake or malfeasance of the clerk of court or of the register of deeds or his personnel in the performance of their duties. * The second situation is also inapplicable. The strongest obstacle to recov ery thereunder is that the priv ate respondents acquired no land or any interest therein as a result of the inv alid sale made to them by the spurious Law aan Lopez. * M A IN P O S TU RE IS TH A T TH E RE A L LA WA A N LO P E Z H A D IN H E R O WN G E N U IN E C E RTIF IC A TE O F TITLE * TH E Y S E E M E D TO BE S A TIS F IE D TH A T H E H A D A N ILO N G O A C C E N T TO E S TA BLIS H H IS C LA IM TO BE TH E V IS A YA N O WN E R O F TH E P RO P E RTY IN Q U E S TIO N . * spouses may still recov er from the impostor