LAND TITLES REVIEWER SEC 1 – 12 National Grains Authority vs.

IAC  Purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to the land and to stop forever any question to its legality.  Proceedings for the registration of title to the land under the Torrens System is an action in rem. Solid State vs. CA  Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title. The holder of the certificate of title does not acquire any better right than what he actually has.  The torrens certificate is the best evidence of ownership over registered land.  *According to Property Cases: Title is that upon which ownership is based.  *Registration of public land does not make it private. Traders Royal Bank vs. CA  The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative to real estate by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens Certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.  In short, you can rely on the face of the title and are not bound to go beyond it. [Effect: Good Faith.] Aznar Brothers vs. Aying  Registration to be effective must be in the proper registry.  A parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, the land is not considered registered and the registration of the deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.  As such prescription would not begin to run from that date. Moscoso vs. CA  Proceedings for the registration of title to land under the Torrens System is in rem, not in personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res, and neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration proceeding. Arceo vs. CA  Under Sec 2 PD 1529, the distinction between the general and limited jurisdiction vested in the RTC as cadastral court [or land registration court] has been eliminated.  The amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits by conferring upon the trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for registration but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications. Evangelista vs. Santiago and San Pedro vs. CA  PD 892 abolished the Spanish System of Registration  Under PD 892, Spanish Titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership or be used to claim ownership. The deadline for the registration under the Torrens System of a Spanish Title was Aug 16, 1976. Noblejas vs. Teehankee  Commissioner of the LRA is an executive official and thus may be investigated by the office of the President.

Laburada vs. LRA  Issuance of Decree of Registration by the LRA is part of the judicial function of courts, involving the exercise of discretion. It is not a ministerial act and thus not compellable by mandamus.  The LRA is mandated to refer to the trial court any doubt it may have in regard to the preparation and the issuance of a decree of registration. In this respect, LRA officials act not as administrative officials, but as officers of the court and their act is the act of the court. LRA is specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in land registration proceedings.  There remains things to be done such as the preparation of amended plans and descriptions of the lot. Republic vs. CA  The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public depository of records or documents affecting titles to lands.  The existence of a Certificate of Title in the RD further supports the authenticity of the title. Baranda vs. Gustilo  Sec 10 of PD1529 provides that “it shall be the duty…”. Hence, the function of the Register of Deeds is ministerial.  In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed, the RD should ask the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration. Balbin vs. RD  Exception to the Duty of RD as ministerial: when only one copy of the co-owners duplicate of certificate of title is presented when there are several issued, then the a voluntary instrument cannotb e registered without surrendering all the copies of the same title to the RD so that every copy thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered by the title. Toleda-Banaga vs. CA  It is a ministerial function of the RD to comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a property in the name of a certain person, especially when the decision had attained finality.  You need not wait for the losing party or the “former owner” to surrender her duplicate of certificate of title for cancellation.

Republic  Sec 14(1) provides that applicants for registration of title must prove both: 1. if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear.  A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity. and divested. 2. relinquished and conveyed its rights and title to UP. as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act. it removed such lands from public domain. That they have been in OCEN possession and occupation And that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12. Without new publication. then the registration proceedings or decree of registration is void insofar as the land not included in the publication is concerned.  *If not. therefore. a new publication of the amended application must be made. the land is bound and title thereto quieted. subject only to the existing concession. De Castro  Even though one court is already proceeding with the registration of a parcel of land. Also. .  Where more than one certificate of tilte is issued.10 sqm). Republic vs. the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent title. Hence. If the amendment INCLUDES an area of land not previously included in the original application. But if the amendment EXCLUDES an area of land. subject only to sec 44 PD1529. UP  When RA No.  Exception: And even if the amendment in Parcel No.  Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. IAC  A decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or may have existed prior to the decree of registration. he may not be deemed to have a priority right to register title. the CLR cannot acquire jurisdiction over the parcel of land added to the original application. an applicant is duty-bound to observe vigilance and to take care that his right or interest is duly protected. Lopez vs. and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. even though an applicant precedes another. while his application is being processed. as published. and non-publication will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons. Director of Lands vs. As such. the added area is too minimal to be of the decisive factor in the validity of OCT 735. Naguit  Sec 14(1) merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed  Need not be alienable and disposable since June 12. 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. convincing evidence. then it would not be nullified by reason of the prior institution st of the 1 application. strong. 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.  But if no publication of amendment. By the issuance of the decree. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands under the public domain upon filing.SEC 14 – 34 Ong vs. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. hence the st nd 1 applicant must file an opposition in the 2 application. the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan need not be presented. As such. 1945 or earlier. It made UP the absolute owner. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal. 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.  Hence. 1 increased the portion of land (by 27. AND.  Publication operates as constructive notice. Reyes  Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. unless otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the government. 1945 or earlier International Hardwood and Veneer Co. 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. it ceded and transferred full ownership to UP. Accretion is susceptible to prescription. the accretion must also be palced under the operation of the Torrens System. Director of Lands  Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and.  Note: Example of 14(4) – those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. a new publication is not necessary. vs. Another court may also proceed with registration nd  And if the 2 application were processed first. 3990 was enacted. It is outside the commerce of men. De Buyser vs. Cureg vs. and it is on the basis of said decree that the RD issues the corresponding certificate of title.  Accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot which received the accretion is covered by a Torrens title. 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.  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.

13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owners duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the RD upon payment of the prescribed fees. Enriquez  A motion to lift the order of general default should be filed before entry of final judgment. To rule otherwise would negate the principal purpose of PD 1529 which is to strengthen the Torrens System though safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property. Santiago  In an action for reversion. Service of notice upon contiguous owners. It wont affect the jurisdiction of the court. Republic vs. or be entitled to notice. In this case the nullity arises not form the fraud or mistake but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title is void. a party in default cannot appear in court. Marasigan  Despite the wording of the law. be heard.  Posting and Mailing and mandatory and jurisdictional. CA  Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory. it is their duty to refer the matter to the court.  The adjudication of land in cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final. in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Borromeo vs.  A party declared in default loses his standing in court. Director. However. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application. Survey of Land by the LMB or a duly licensed surveyor. .  Holders of Spanish Title may no longer use this to register land. 9. the Spanish Title may be used to prove ownership through prescription.  Preponderance of evidence. unless he files a motion to set aside the order of default on grounds under sec 3 Rule 9. Publication in the newspaper alone would not suffice. publication in the OG is sufficient for complying with publication requirements. if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree. Without which the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register title of applicants. and they have no discretion in the matter. the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land.  However. Descala  The subsequent sale of land to a Filipino cures the defect of the sale to a non-Filipino. CA  Duty of the land registration officials to issue the decree of registration is ministerial in the sense that they act under orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record.  Bare allegations will not suffice. occupants and those known to have interests in the property by the sheriff. Evangelista vs. De Casto vs. Gomez vs. Director of Lands vs. A party in default cannot even appeal from the judgment rendered. date and place of hearing in the OG and newspaper of general circulation. although the law mandates publication to be in the OG and newspaper of general circulation. Without which judgment is void as to the additional territory.  Thus as long as the decree has not been entered by the LRA an 1 year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such decree. the Commissioner of the LRA.Lopez vs.  Notwithstanding the absence of opposition. Aboratigue  Prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens System. Setting the date of initial hearing of the application by the court Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing to together with all the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the clerk of court to the LRA. 8. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not. a decrease in the area need not be published. Republic vs. 5. 2.  An oppositor to the land registration proceedings is required to file a motion to lift default.  The owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable length. adduce evidence. Abrille  Procedure for the Original Registration of imperfect or incomplete title or claim to land.  In an action for the declaration of nullity would require allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of defendant’s title as well as the fraud or mistake in obtaining the documents of title. CA  Applicant must present muniments of title to substantiate the claim of ownership.  A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title.  A movant under sec 129 PD 1529 is not required to file motion to lift Republic vs. 11. 4. Fernandez vs. LMB vs. 6. Marcos  Publication is required when additional territory is sought to be included in the original plan. the title is not finally adjudicated and decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control of the court. Filing of application for registration of by the applicant 3. The real party in interest is the State. Further a claim is only noted on the survey plan and such notation cannot prevail over the actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate.  However. 1.  An application to extract the minerals must be filed. Entry of the decree of registration in the LRA Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding RD. 7. an applicant in a land registration proceeding it not relieved from the burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed.  Publication in the OG is not enough. Hearing of the case by the court Promulgation of judgment by the court Issuance of the decree by the court declaring the decision final and instructing the LRA to issue the decree of confirmation and registration. 10. His ownership does not give him the right to extract or utilize said mineral without permission of the State to which such minerals belong. as a result. 12. CA  The owner of agricultural land does not own minerals formed underneath the land. And the real party-in-interest is the plaintiff alleging a preexisting right of ownership over the parcel of land.

The boundaries prevail. possession must not be by mere fiction. Jacob  The law speaks of the requirement of Possession and Occupation. investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators and a legislative act or statute.  Note: 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while 14(2) of prescription.Republic vs. Vano  Res Judicata applies to land registration and cadastral proceedings. or development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted to patrimonial. Reclassification of the land as alienable and disposable.  Torrens is not a means of acquiring titles to lands. it is enough that the land be alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the application. 3. The counting starts when both 1 and 2 are present.  Forest lands are not alienable unless reclassified. land erroneously included is not acquired by the holder of such certificate. Malabanan  Reiteration of Naguit  Under 14(1). timber. Vencilao vs. remains property of the public dominion and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. and mineral. and 2.  Actual possession of the land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion. there must be 1. Bacus  Only the President.  Once the requisite 30 year prescription has been completed two legal events ensue: 1. use. Republic vs. For an applicant to qualify. Republic vs.  Without number 2. the property even if classified as alienable and disposable. The patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land. the person in possession acquires ownership by operation of the CC. upon the recommendation of the Sec of DENR may reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. an administrative action.  Under 14(2). CA  In case of discrepancy or conflict between the boundaries and areas stated in the title.  An applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a PP or an EO.  What defines a piece of property is not the numerical data indicated as the area of the land but the “metes and bounds” or boundaries of the property specified in its technical description as enclosing it and showing its limits. 2. . There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service.

 Res Judicata applies in a non-registration case. 1. subject matter and cause of action.  Cadastral court has no jurisdiction over registered land.a. Heirs of Luzuriaga vs. CA  In a cadastral proceeding. De La Merced vs. Technical errors in the description of the lands provided they do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner and cannot operate to deprive the registered owner of his title. already issued in the name of a person. CA  A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public. There must be identity of parties. Olivia  A piece of land. after 15 days from receipt of the decision and no appeal was made. Cadastral Act. does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land. Director of Lands vs. Parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already determined by final judgment. Benitez  Besides the filign of the petition for reopening of a cadastral case. as well as the general public. CA –  Cadastral Proceeding is in rem and any decision is binding against the whole world. Republic vs. 2. divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in his favor. Upon request of the registered owner. which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the land to be surveyed.SEC 35 – 38 Municipality of Santiago Isabela vs. Judgment on the merits. in the name of another. 4.  But where the identity of the land and area of the claimed property is not the subject of the amendment but other collateral matters.  And any additional territory or change in the area cannot be included by amendment without new publication. Republic  No publication. Manotok Realty vs. Duran vs. registered through a homestead patent under the land registration act cannot be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and any title issued thereon is null and void.  In other words. provided he complies with the requirements of law. title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision of the cadastral court adjudicating ownership in favor of one claimant. or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his substantial rights. Court w/c rendered former judgment had jurisdiction over parties and subject matter. Former Judgment Final. The reason for this is because a cadastral proceeding is in rem.  Under this doctrine parties are precluded from relitigating the same issues already determined by final judgment. Vera  A Cadastral proceeding is in rem. which says that ownership is vested once the certificate of title has been registered in the RD.  Elements of Res Judicata: 1. Anyone claiming ownership of any land so affected should lay claim. it is necessary that notice thereof be given to those who claim an adverse interest in the land. new publication is not needed. as well as the municipal building.  One of the main purposes of a cadastral proceeding is to settle titles to lands.  . Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim and identity of the property to be surveyed.  After the lapse of the period to appeal. as required by Sec 1 ACT 2259 a.  A decision in the cadastral case is not a bar to the application for registration because a decision is not the final decree contemplated in the Land Registration Act.  If amendment is to include additional portion of property then there must be publication. 3. Director of Lands vs. by publishing such notice in 2 successive issues in the OG. Republic  Publication is a condition sine qua non for the RTC acting as a cadastral court to acquire jurisdiction. Failure to do so authorizes the court to declare the land public.k.  **May be over-ruled by Manotok. CLT Realty  Jurisdiction of Cadastral Court is limited to 1. 2. Veranga vs. File a motion to dismiss. Determine between 2 parties who has a better right over the property or which of the conflicting titles should prevail 3. then the decision is void for having been rendered without jurisdiction. property can no longer be acquired by prescription. What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of land. the cadastral court can issue new title.

the corrective recourse lies with the courts. Bornales vs IAC  Purchaser in bad faith cannot invoke indefeasibility of certificate of title. within one (1) year from its issuance. Manotok vs Barque  The LRA is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its legal effect. the Certificate of Title shall take effect only when it is entered in the Book of Registery by the RD. or in the words of Cadiz.  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. and the person in whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the same. Inequity. it is indirect or collateral when. without prejudice. Heirs of Gonzaga vs CA Manotok Cases  Where two certifcates purport to include the same land.  Burden of proof on plaintiff – incontrovertible evidence Pasino vs Monterroyo  A Counterclaim is Not a Collateral Attack on the Title  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  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. Even assuming that the previously issued title is obviously fraudulent or attended by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced by the legal system. and not with the LRA. even if the land is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value because the grant of the title was not within the jurisdiction of the grantor such as land registration court or the LRA. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment. for he has no true title thereto. Laches deals wit the effect of unreasonable delay.  All TCTs emanating from the void OCT are void. Timbancaya  The one-year rule within which to contest the decree of registration. CA  Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. the property is registered from the date of entry in the RD. the TCT issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail. the earlier in date prevails. the law refers to the ownership which a certificate of title merely represents. 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. or enjoin its enforcement. on the ground of fraud. the same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it. warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it." This is a remedy which is available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value.  If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA.  However. however. which has for its purpose the reopening of the decree of title.50 MWSS vs CA.  A certificate of title is not conclusive evidence if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence.  . Although property registered under the Torrens may not be acquired through prescription. Republic vs CA  Exception to indefeasibility of Title: when the property is incapable of registration. Placing a parcel of land under the Torrens does not mean that the ownership can no longer be disputed. whether wholly or partly. 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.  The third party complaint for cancellation of TCT being in the nature of an original complaint for cancellation of TCT. an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. 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. there is nothing further the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition.  Such as Forest Land.  The action to annul the title or the action for reconveyance has its basis in Section 55 of Act 496. Arguelles vs. 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. On the other hand. By Title.  The defense of indefeasibility of title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of the flaws in his transferor’s title.  If there be only one common OCT. the better approach is to trace the OCTs from which the certificates of title were derived and then the TCT derived from the earlier OCT prevails.SEC 39 . it constitutes a direct attack of such TCT Erasusta vs CA  Collateral Attack on a certificate of title is prohibited  But what cannot be collaterally attacked is the Certificate of Title and not the Title itself. the same is not true with laches.  Even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by virtue of laches. Cabrera vs. or before the OCT becomes indefeasible does not apply to a case which involves the annulment of a TCT.  Ownership is different from a certificate of title. Degollacion vs Register of Deeds of Cavite  Where there are 2 TCTs purport to include the same land. in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief.  Where issuance of the title was attended by fraud. It is independent and distinct from that authorized by Sec 38 thereof.

Only the LMB has the authority to approve Original Survey plans for registration proceedings. o Where the voluntary instrument bears on its face an infirmity. or on appeal from the decision of RDs o Verify and approve sudivision and consolidation and consolidation-subdivision survey plancs of properties titles except those under PD 957 [subdivision for sale. o By law. The applicant must prove that he is the real and absolute owner. But may be used as evidence of posssession. Persons who cannot apply for an application for registration. go to HLURB]  Register of Deeds may refuse registration when: o When there are several copies of the title but only one is presented with the instrument to be registered. Signed and sworn to. Strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession. Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are at best indicia of possession. o Petition for accretion is in effect a request for confirmation of title already vested in the riparaian owner by the law.           Other Modes of acquiring ownership o Proclamation effecting a land grant. o Must prove that the land has been declassified from the forest land and now part of agricultural and is alienable and disposable by positive act of Gov  Presidential Proc  EO  Administrative Order by DENR  Bureau of Forest Development Land Classification Map  Certification by the Director of Forestry  Investigation Reports of LMB  Legislative Act or Statute o Must prove the identity of the land  See Rep vs. If there are 2 lands in 2 different places. Munoz o Must prove possession and occupation for the length of time and in the manner required by law. then 2 applications. Such as when the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse. excusable neglect o And that he has a meritorious defense When an oppositor has already filed an opposition but only failed to appear at the initial hearing of the application. Accretion by the Sea – Public land and outside the commerce of man. in fee simple [absolute ownership]. mistake. thus ownership through acquisitive prescription.Some Final Notes  Impt Functions of the Commission of the LRA o Issue the decree of registration pursuant to final judgments o Resolve cases elevated en consulta by. then he must prove the basis of such claim by submitting the muniments of title. ceding full ownership. o Where there is a pending case in court where the character of the land and validity of the conveyance are in issue o Document presented is merely a private instrument – not notarized. Amendment needs publication when: o Substantial change in the boundaries o Increase in the area of land applied for o Inclusion of an additional land     . Must present evidence of private ownership or of acquisition from the government. Application must be accompanied by survey plan and muniments of title. This constitutes an infirmity on the face of the document. o Public land sales applicant o Mortgagee o Antechretic creditor o Claim of ownership denied in a reinvidicatory action Court having territorial jurisdiction of the land should take cognizance of the case.  Purposes and Effects of Publication o Confer jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court o Constructive Notice: To Charge the whole world with knowledge of the application and invite them to take part in the case and assert and prove their rights over the property. Accretion by the river – private land if adjoined to a private land. o Muniment – instrument or written evidence to prove title or proofs of ownership. Non-resident applicant may be represented by an agent or representative resding in the Phil. accident. then the order of default is improper o Oppositor must file a petition for certiorari to have the judgment by default set aside as a nullity.  Spanish Title no longer allowed as evidence of ownership. Oppositor must state all objections to the application and set forth the interest claimed and apply for the remedy desired. o And If he claims Private Ownership. The Order of Default may be set aside by a motion to lift the order of default upon a showing of: o Failure due to fraud.

the property is burdened only by those noted on the title 1. Public highway or private way. No need for discussing collateral attack or direct attack when the OCT or TCT is void from the beginning. Liens. Action for cancellation of TCT General Rule: insofar as the registered owner and innocent purchaser is concerned. Register with the RD. Counsel for Applicant must prove o Jurisdictional Requirements o Ownership o Identity of the land. there is a previous valid title. without prejudice to the government’s right to collect taxes payable before that period from the delinquent taxpayer alone. Liability to attachment or levy on execution. 2. 4. Liability to be recovered by  an assignee in insolvency cases. Judgment becomes final after lapse of 15 days after receipt of the notice of judgment. or any government irrigation canal or lateral thereof – those established or recognized by law. claims. or rights – arising or existing under the laws and Constitution. Rights of Partition between co-owners. 7. But writ will not issue against persons taking possession after issuance of final decree. 6. 8. Approved by the LRA 3.     Any disposition/limitation on the property – those by virtue of PD27 or any other law or regulations on agrarian reform Sec. if registered then property can no longer be subject of cadastral but only those exception in Manotok. Right of Gov to take the land by eminent domain. or on the interest of the owner on such land or buildings.  Landlord and tenant. Fraud or misrepresentation in the acquisition. Rights incident to the relation of  Husband and wife. the effect of which is the cleansing of the defects or flaws in the title because such is in rem. Property Not capable of registration 4. Survey 2. Government Expropriation proceedings – cleanses the defect of the title from the very beginning Exceptions to indefeasibility of title: 1. which are not required to appear of record in the RD in order to be valid. 3. Approved by HLURB pursuant to PD 957 3. Only OCT is incontrovertible. Cadastral Proceeding: Subject Matter is Unregistered land. o However. Right or Liability that may arise due to Change of the laws on descent. the court continues to retain control of the case until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of decree of registration by the LRA. Approved by the LRA or DENR [or is it LMB] 3. only requirement is a written request to the RD because the technical descriptions are already covered in the OCT or TCT Consolidation without technical Descriptions 1. 2.         Splitting and Consolidation of Title. Liability to any lien established by law on the land or the buildings thereon. Survey 2. There may be prescription when the plaintiff claims title from his predecessor in whose name the OCT was issued.  trustee in bankruptcy cases. Other rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land 4. Unpaid real estate taxes – those levied and assessed w/in 2 yrs immediately preceding the acquisition of any right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value. Forest Land is still forest land even if there’s no forest. Registered lands are subject to burdens and incidents arising by operation of law. Survey 2. The adjudication does not become incontrovertible until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry. After the judgment becomes final. Partial judgment allowed when only a portion of the land is contested. 2. Register with the RD Steps: Subdivision for Sale 1. Property registered under Torrens may not be acquired through prescription buy registered owner may be barred by laches. 3. Writ of possession is inherent. Steps: Subdivision of lot but NOT for SALE 1. 3. Registered lands or the owners thereof shall not be relieved from: 1. Judgment confirming title carries with it the delivery of possession. But the applicant must substantiate the claim of ownership with regards to the unconstested portion. there must be inequity. Property is already Titled. 46 – General Incidents of registered lands. Except those under Sec 44 and 46 [Mem!] Sec 44: Exception to those noted in the certificate and any of the following which may be subsisting 1. Register with the RD When Government files for expropriation.         . if the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway or irrigation have been determined. 5. the court shall issue an order for the issuance of the decree of registration and corresponding certificate of title.

.

2. The Administrator of the LRA is not legally obligated to issue the decree where upon his verification. Court will order the issuance of the decree 8. Hearing  It would be the claimant who will present evidence (note: in cadastral it is called claimant while in original registration it is called opposition) 6. Publication of the notice of initial hearing – cadastral is in rem because of the publication requirement. Judgment 7. File the petition by the OSG representing the DENR 3. Party who initiates Original Registration Party claiming ownership Person Claiming Private Land Filing Subject Matter Prayer of application Person to Present Evidence Conducts Survey Title be issued in his name Applicant first presents evidence Applicant Cadastral Proceeding DENR upon President’s judgment OSG Unregistered land. Not subject to Prescription 2. Duty of the LRA is ministerial in the sense that they act under orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity of the judgment and with the data found in the record. in doubt.takes the form of an original application for registration (claimant will present evidence before government)  Declaration of default (general or special) 5. Filing of an Answer  Answer is to be filed by the person claiming the property --. LRA to issue the decree of registration. he finds that the subject land has already been decreed and titled in another’s name. After the court declares the decision final.Sec7&8 of Act 2259 [cadastral act] 4. And he could not be compelled by mandamus because the issuance of the decree is part of the judicial function of courts and not a mere ministerial act. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. Steps in a Cadastral Proceeding 1. Posting and mailing are also necessary. However. RD will make the corresponding entries Advantages of a Registered owner under the Torrens System: 1. any piece of property Order adjudicating title to person who really are entitled Claimant ahead of Gov – those who filed an answer Government     . Survey  By the DENR upon the directive of the President  Notice of survey including the technical description published in the OG. they must refer the matter to the court. Land Registration Case: Incontrovertible Evidence.  Published in OG twice  Notice and  Mailing --. 9.

counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. CA  An action for reconveyance may be filed even before the issuance of the decree of registration. or from presenting all of his case to the court.  Thus an action for recovery of property may be treated as an action for reconveyance filed within the 1 year reglementary period. there must be actual notice. sale or attachment. Because of such omission.  The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. CA  An action for reconveyance based on a constructive trust prescribes in 10 years after the issuance of the certificate of title. such as forged instruments or perjured testimonies.  Filing of a timely motion for new trial precludes filing of a petition for relief after denial of motion. Cabrera vs. National Treasurer  The assurance fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. the possessors were not notified. Puno  The Remedies of Petition for Relief from judgment and motion for new trial and/or reconsideration are exclusive of each other.  The fresh 15 day period may only be availed of only if either a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed. either of which is calculated to deprive another of his legal rights.  The government is not an insurer of the unwary citizen’s property against the chicanery of scoundrels. there is fraud when the applicant for land registration failed to inform the court of persons in actual possession of the land registered in the applicant’s name. Rufloe. IAC  Good Faith consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title.  There is Extrinsic fraud when it is employed to deprive a party of his day in court. then the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were instrumental in the deprivation. the reason being that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and rd determine the nature of the adverse claim of a 3 party and its effect on his own title. CA  “Fresh Period Rule”. . Pino vs.  Here. Adriano and Sandoval Cases  Cases merely discuss what it takes to be an innocent purchaser/mortgagee for value as a requisite of a petition for review of the decree. Rexlon Realty vs. He has been deprived thereof through fraud 3. CA  To bind third parties to an unregistered encumbrance. Moran  A petition for review may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from entry of the final decree of registration.  Relief From Judgment is only appropriate in cases where a party aggrieved by a judgment has not been able to file a motion for new trial.  Fraud committed during trial. Petition is filed from 1 year from the issuance of the decree. is not extrinsic fraud Rivera vs. otherwise if his the right to seek reconveyance which in effect is an action to quiet does not prescribe  One who is in actual possession of land claiming to be the owner may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. De Guzman vs. Petitioner has a real and dominical right 2. the decision becomes final after the lapse of the original period to appeal Cruz vs.  Good Faith is the opposite of fraud and it refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. A fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC.  Actual fraud is the intentional concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application or statement of a claim against the truth. Property has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value 4. CA  When the action for reconveyance based on constructive trust has prescribed [more than 10 years from the issuance of the certificate]. the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial. Just see the discussions in the next page. Duran vs.  Auction sale retroacts to the date of the registration of the mortgage putting the auction sale beyond the reach of any intervening lis pendens. Navarro  A review of the decree of registration is warranted when: 1. thereby preventing him from asserting his right to the property.  Chain of Title: a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. Pineda vs. otherwise.  There is no extrinsic fraud where the failure of a party to present its case was caused by its own inaction.  The plaintiff need not wait the termination of the registration proceedings before filing an action for reconveyance. But this rule applies only if the person claiming to be the owner is not in possession. CA  Extrinsic fraud contemplates a situation where a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case.  Fraud must be actual and extrinsic. Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. a real contest.REMEDIES Francisco vs. Neypes vs. such as when it was not impleaded as a party because it failed to effect the timely registration of its Deed of Sale.

acquire no protection under the Torrens. Llanto vs.”  The buyer who could not have failed to know or discover that the land sold to him was in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith. Monillas  Prior registration of lien creates a preference. expected of a man of ordinary prudence.SEC 51 – 68 Garcia vs. When a man proposes to buy or deal with realty his first duty is to read this public manuscript. Notes:  Involuntary Registration – mere entry in the day book is sufficient  Voluntary – 1. And any title issued shall be cancelled. Mingoa vs. you must look at the land and if someone is in adverse possession. Except: Mortgagee in Good Faith.  Doctrine – Registration retroacts to the date of entry in the day book. CA  Where a person buys land not from the registered owners but from one whose right to the land has been merely annotated on the certificate. Republic  Mortgagees of non-disposable lands. CA  An inquiry is in truth dictated by common sense. LRC  The date of mailing is the date of filing Pilapil vs. actual entry?  General Rule: Buyer is not required to make an inquiry.  In involuntary registration. Vendee has actual knowledge of the flaw. otherwise mortgage is void. even if in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Pay Fees 5. IAC  The fact alone that the purchasers purchased the property with full knowledge of the flaws and defect in the title of their vendors is enough proof of their bad faith. Alzona  The General Rule is that the mortgagor should be the owner of the property mortgaged. such knowledge being equivalent to registration. Annotation of notice of lis pendens. Failing in this exercise is tantamount to bad faith. CA  One who buys from the registered owner need not look beyond the certificate of title.  Doctrine – if you’re not buying from the registered owner.  Doctrine – deal with the registered owner always! Even if he’s the forger. Bornales vs. that is. CA  One who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens is a purchaser in bad faith. if not bad faith. the mortgage contract and eventual foreclosure sale are given effect by reason of public policy. Except: 1.  An OCT covering property of the public domain classified as forest or timber or mineral land is void. This is based on the rule that all persons dealing with property under the Torrens are not required to look beyond the face of the title. Forger. titles to which were erroneously issued. or the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered Land Bank vs.  On the other hand. Land is in possession of another. 5. is “that universal manuscript open to the eyes of all. you must make an inquiry. Facts and circumstances that compel a reasonable man to investigate 2. the innocent purchaser for value becomes the registered owner the moment he presents and files a duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day book and at the same time he surrenders the owner’s duplicate certificate of title covering the land sold and pays the registration fees. CA  A distinction is made with regard to voluntary and involuntary registration. one who buys from another who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate but also the all the factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws. in voluntary registration. Solivel vs. CA  To affect the land sold. [impliedly SC said that you can’t rely on the certificate of title alone. you must look at the land. an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons even if the owner’s duplicate certificate of title is not presented to the RD. Francisco vs. even if the mortgagor is not the owner. 3. Chain of Title Theory requires at least 3 Titles [Orig Owner. and what are his rights. the presentation of the deed of sale and its entry in the day book must be done with the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title. Buyer]. Present deed 2. Entry in the day book 3. PNB vs. Egao vs. Production of the owner’s duplicate is required by Sec 53 PD1529 and only after compliance with this and other requirements shall actual registration retroact to the date of entry in the day book. Buying property not from the registered owner 4. Here there were only two titles. to look and see who is there upon it. .] Quiniano vs. Surrender TCT 4.  Under this doctrine.  Note: this also includes an innocent lessee. Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Francisco  The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself. not by a forged deed. he is not considered a subsequent purchaser of the land who takes certificate of title for value and in good faith and who is protected against any encumbrance except those noted on said certificate. then make an inquiry into the nature of the possession. and such purchaser merely had his deed of sale annotated on the certificate of title.” it has been said.  The subsequent annotation of an adverse claim cannot defeat the rights of the mortgagee.  “The Earth.  Doctrine – if buying real property.

the grantee [buyer] may file with the RD a statement setting forth his adverse claim. CA  Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right that that of the registered owner. bona fide or not. Lopez vs. or warn. requires hearing and proper disposition of the claim before it may be cancelled. where the registered owner refuses to surrender the duplicate certificate for the annotation of the voluntary instrument.  The registration or cancellation of the notice does not affect the merits on the action. all people who deal with the property that they so deal with it at their own risk. CA  A purchase and delivery made in good faith cannot be affected by a subsequent annotation of lis pendens. the filing of a notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien that does not previously exist. entry in the day book [primary entry book] is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. And entry in the day book is sufficient to affect the property. Magdalena Homeowners vs. Thus. a subsequent sale cannot prevail over the adverse claim which was previously annotated in the certificate of title over the property. as it is a right in rem.  A REM is inseparable from the property mortgaged. a 3 party who acquires the property after relying only on the TCT is rd a purchaser in good faith. Enriquez  Two-fold effect of the filing of lis pendens o Keeps the SM of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations o It binds the purchaser. and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the RD. CA  In a voluntary sale. Thus against such 3 party the rights of a litigant cannot prevail  Only original parties to an action may apply for a notice of lis pendens. the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective. rd  Without the notice of lis pendens.SEC 69 – 92 Caviles vs.  Statement that the property is subject to consulta cannot serve as warning and notice to third persons. [The annotation may be cancelled by the filing of the verified petition by the party in interest] Rodriguez vs.  Constructive notice operates from the time of the registration of the notice of lis pendens which can no longer affect consummated sales done prior to registration.  The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure to protect an interest where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the law on registration of real property Ligon vs. which is more permanent. CA  Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title which subsists should be incorporated or carried over to the new TCT. nor does the existence of one automatically nullify the other  Should any be considered unnecessary and superfluous it would be the notice of lis pendens because an adverse claim.  However. CA  A notice of lis pendens is proper in the ff: o Action to recover possession o Action to quiet title o Action to remove cloud o Action for partition o Any other proceeding in court directly affecting the title to the land or use or occupation thereof. CA  Notice of lis pendens and adverse claim are not contradictory or repugnant to one another. and whatever rights they may acquire in the property are subject to the results of the action.  Notice is meant merely to constructively advise. .  A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court after o Proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. Doronilla vs. a lien on the property whoever its owner may be. Sajonas vs.  After the lapse of 30 days effectivity of the adverse claim.  Aquino – notice may also be cancelled upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration. o Or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who registered it. SLDC vs.  Entry alone produces the effect of registration so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation. Bautista  In involuntary registration. of the land to the judgment that the court will promulgate subsequently.

the patent shall operate only as a contract between the Gov and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the RD to make registration. the only remedy is to go after the impostor for damages or prosecution under RPC. or they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. . CA  Recovery from the Assurance Fund may be had in two instances: o Any person who without negligence sustains damage through the omission. De Los Angeles vs. IAC  Public land certificate of title attains the status of indefeasibility 1 year after the issuance of patent. Tengco vs. A Homestead Patent once registered under the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title.  Applicants in the land registration court should be given to prove registrable title and if meritorious. If not registered.  Title acquired through a homestead Patent is imprescriptible. CA  A person seeking to recover from the Assurance fund must be in good faith.SEC 91 – 106 Torres vs. Orciga  A CLT proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn. o Any person who without negligence has been deprived  It is a condition sine qua non that the person who brings an action for damages against the assurance fund be the registered owner and as holders of the TCT.  A Certificate of Land Transfer is a provisional title of ownership while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the land’s value or for as long as the beneficiary is an amortizing owner. failure to do so would preclude recovery from the assurance fund. Santos  A land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested of its jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land. if neither. and if insolvent against the Assurance Fund. as long as the land is disposable land of the public domain and becomes indefeasible after 1 year from the order of Director of Lands to issue the patent.  A certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding. Del Castillo vs. Ybanez vs. Esquierdo  The right of an innocent mortgagee must be protected. Monterroyo  It is the act of registration of the Patent which is the operative act to affect and convey the land. Pasino vs. provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land. mistake or malfeasance of the clerk of court or the RD or his personnel in the performance of their duties. even if the mortgagor obtained title through fraud.  Thus. the land is no longer part of the public domain and the Director of Lands loses control and jurisdiction over it.  Omission to do investigation constitutes negligence.  Once the patent is registered.  The remedy of those prejudiced is an action for damages against those who caused the fraud. Treasurer vs. If there are circumstances which should have put the buyers on guard and prompted them to investigate. Blanco vs.  Land Transfer under PD 27 is effected in two stages: o Issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary o Issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer or beneficiary.  The CLT prescribes the terms and conditions of ownership over said land and likewise describes the landholding – its area and location. Aliwalas  An OCT issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a OCT issued in a judicial proceeding. the court would order a decree of title issued in applicant’s favor and declare the homestead patent a nullity for the Director of Lands had no jurisidiction to issue such patent.