Republic of the Philippines v. CA & Roberto A. Miguel (G.R. No.

L-60487) TOPICs: Application for registration under the Torrens system of the land in dispute, which is claimed by the RP as part of the public domain and by the private respondent by virtue of a valid transfer. Exercised more caution in accepting secondary evidence in lieu of Spanish titles, since during that time theres a lot of fake titles discovered. FACTS: -Subject property is situated in Tinambac, Camarines Sur and part of a parcel of land consisting of about 1,800 hectares (allegedly originally acquired by Ambrocio Mallupa under a possessory information title in the registry of Nueva Caceres on Nov. 27, 1894) -Then inherited by Ambrocios children, Francisco and Basilia - Dec. 14, 1951, Francisco sold about 250 hectares of the land to spouses Cario and delivered to them his fathers title and all related documents - Segundo Cario had the record of the possessory info. reconstituted by the RD of Camarines Sur. -Such copy was lost by Antonio Martinez, a real estate agent to whom Cario entrusted it on May 19,1956 for possible sale - Cario then sold the land (July 24, 1963) to Roberto A. Miguel, who filed the registration on May 4, 1966. In CFI of Cam Sur. -trial judge then approved such application and was upheld on appeal which affirmed that the possessory information title had validly conferred ownership on the applicant -such decision was challenged by the RP as not supported with evidence and rendered with grave abuse of discretion ISSUE: 1. Whether the secondary evidence of a copy of the possessory information title or the existence/validity of such title was worthy of credence? 2. Whether such application should be granted? RULING: 1. No, the loss of the original possessory information title was not proven. Martinez was not presented in court and the only basis was the allegations of Cario. Cario claims to have commissioned Martinez to sell the land by virtue of an authority dated July 8, 1957 while the receipt of the title was acknowledge on May 19,1956 or more than a year earlier. -Miguel, being a lawyer should have exercised due care in inquiring as to the loss of the original title or should have satisfied himself that the required continuous, actual, public and adverse possession of 20 years had been completely complied with. 2. No, the application should be denied since the property is hereby declared as part of the public domain . -Governing laws: Spanish Mortgage Law, !st Public Land Act and 2nd Public Land act, Land Registration Act and Cadastral Act. -Assuming the existence of the title, the second condition of possession for 20 years was not satisfied.

Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. The Ayings G.R. No. 144773 TOPICs: Registration of a registered property at the PROPER registry would serve as a constructive notice to the world. Implied Constructive trust Prescription/Laches

FACTS: -The disputed property is located at Lapu-Lapu City inherited by the 8 children of Crisantia Maloloy-on. (1930-after her death, the court issued a decree in the name of her 8 children) -Certificate of Title was lost during the war. -subsequently on Mar. 3, 1964, all the heirs of the Aying siblings executed an Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the land to Aznar. - Registered the title in 1964 under Act. No. 3344 (registration for unregistered land) and since then Aznar was religiously paying the real property taxes. - in 1991, Aznar, claiming to be the rightful owner of the subject property, sent out notices to vacate the premises, addressed to persons occupying the property. - heirs then contend that the sale is void/fraudulent. ISSUES: 1. Whether the registration under Act. No. 3344 will serve as a constructive notice which will start the running of the period for prescription? 2. Whether Implied Constructive Trust exist? 3. Whether the cause of action is imprescriptible or whether laches do apply? HELD: 3.-Not imprescriptible, the sale is not void; it is binding and valid only to the heirs who participated in the execution thereof. Contracts should be interpreted in favor of its validity or parts thereof. -Heirs of Emiliano, Roberta and Simeon, who undisputedly did not participate, cannot be bound. -Aznar acquired the entire parcel of land with the mistaken belief that all the heirs have executed the subj. document. 2. * ART. 1456 constructive implied trust (created by operation of law) -10 yr. prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registration (no need of repudiation of the trustee) but if the person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe. 1. Registration must be done in the proper Registry. -Aznar did not register it to the proper registry (if the land is registered under the LRA (torrens title) and it is sold but the subsequent sale is registered not under the LRA but under Act 3344, such sale is not considered Registered) so prescriptive period will begin to run when the heirs had actual notice of the sale.

Heirs of Roberta- 3 years after 1964 Heirs of Emiliano sometime after Martial Law Heirs of Simeon did not give any evidence -Aznar raises the defense of prescription but wasnt able to prove such against the heirs of Emiliano and Simeon. -As to them, prescription period will start from 1991 (sent notices) -case was filed in 1993 so laches will not apply -2/8 of the land belong to the heirs of Emiliano and Simeon as beneficiary/trustor Lamsis v. Dong-E G.R. No. 173021 TOPICs: conflict of ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of land. Registration proceedings does not take precedence over reinvidicatory action Ancestral land claims are under the jurisdiction of NCIP FACTS: -Subject property is located along Asin rd. Baguio City with an area of 80,736 sq. m. and part of a larger parcel of land w/ an area of 186,090 sq. m. (lot no. 1) -Petitioners are the actual occupants while the respondent is claiming ownership and seeking recovery thereof. -According to Dong-E, ownership and possession of the land can be traced back to her late grandfather Ap-Ap in 1922 -Upon Ap-Aps death, his children inherited and obtained a survey plan 1964 and declared the property for taxation purposes -heirs of Ap-Ap executed a Deed of Quitclaim for P500 on Feb. 26, 1964 in favor of their brother Gilbert Semon (Margaritas father) -Bet. 1976-1978, Gilbert and his wife let his in-laws Manolo Lamsis and Nancy Lamsis-Kitma to stay on a portion of Lot no. 1 together with their respective families. -allowed to erect their houses, introduce improvements, and plant trees -1980s, when Manolo and Nancy died , their children, petitioners (Delfin) and (Agustin), took possession of certain portions of Lot No. 1. -Delfin possessed 4,000 sq m. of Lot No. 1, while Agustin occupied 5,000 sq. m. thereof.1heirs of Gilbert Semon tolerated the acts of their first cousins -1983, Gilbert Semon died3 his children extrajudicially partitioned the property among themselves and allotted Lot No. 1 in favor of Margarita. - Since then, Margarita allegedly paid the realty tax over Lot No. 1 and occupied and improved the property together with her husband; while at the same time, tolerating her first cousins occupation of portions of the same lot. - but Delfin and Agustin allegedly began expanding their occupation on the subj. property and started selling portions thereof. Delfin sold 400 sq. m. to Maynard while Agustin sold another portion to Jose

- so margarita file a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession, reconveyance and damages. - but according to Delfin and Agustin, Lot no.1 is a public land claimed by the heirs of Joaquin Smith. Smiths gave their permission for Delfin and Agustins parents to occupy the land in 1969-1970. ISSUES: 1. Whether the appellate court disregarded material facts and circumstances in affirming the trial courts decision 2. Whether petitioners have acquired the subject property by prescription; 3. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the effectivity of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 at the time that the complaint was instituted; 4. If the trial court retains jurisdiction, whether the ancestral land claim pending before the NCIP should take precedence over the reivindicatory action. RULING: 1. No, Since it raises essentially questions of fact, this assignment of error must be dismissed for it is settled that only questions of law may be reviewed in an appeal by certiorari - Their factual findings, supported as they are by the evidence, should be accorded great respect - Even without the Deed of Quitclaim, respondents claims of prior possession and ownership were adequately supported and corroborated by her other documentary and testimonial evidence. We agree with the trial courts observation that, in the ordinary course of things, people will not go to great lengths to execute legal documents and pay realty taxes over a real property, unless they have reason to believe that they have an interest over the same - Court is inclined to believe the respondents version, as both the trial and appellate courts have concluded, since her version is corroborated by the documentary evidence (CALC, CSTFAL) 2. No, petitioners occupied the property by mere tolerance of its owners ,they cannot claim that they have acquired the property by prescription unless they can prove acts of repudiation (Ownership; by acquisitive prescription. Assuming that the subject land may be acquired by prescription, we cannot accept petitioners claim of acquisition by prescription. Petitioners admitted that they had occupied the property by tolerance of the owner thereof. Having made this admission, they cannot claim that they have acquired the property by prescription unless they can prove acts of repudiation. It is settled that possession, in order to ripen into ownership, must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession not in the concept of owner, such as the one claimed by petitioners, cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription, unless the juridical relation is first expressly repudiated and such repudiation has been communicated to the other party. Acts of possessory character executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Possession by tolerance is not adverse and such possessory acts, no matter how long performed, do not start the running of the period of prescription. In the instant case, petitioners made no effort to allege much less prove any act of repudiation sufficient for the reckoning of the acquisitive prescription. At most, we can find on record the sale by petitioners

Delfin and Agustin of parts of the property to petitioners Maynard and Jose; but the same was done only in 1998, shortly before respondent filed a case against them. Hence, the 30-year period necessary for the operation of acquisitve prescription had yet to be attained.) 3. No but.. -For the first time in the entire proceedings of this case, petitioners raise the trial courts alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter in light of the effectivity78 of the IPRA at the time that the complaint was filed in 1998. They maintain that, under the IPRA, it is the NCIP which has jurisdiction over land disputes involving indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples. -an exception to the rule: (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy) Laches 4. Whether the ancestral land claim pending before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should take precedence over the reivindicatory action

-Given that a registration proceeding (such as the certification of ancestral lands) is not a conclusive adjudication of ownership, it will not constitute litis pendentia on a reivindicatory case where the issue is ownership. "For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case." The third element is missing, for any judgment in the certification case would not constitute res judicata or be conclusive on the ownership issue involved in the reivindicatory case. Since there is no litis pendentia, there is no reason for the reivindicatory case to be suspended or dismissed in favor of the certification case (Property; registration; ancestral lands. The application for issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title pending before the NCIP is akin to a registration proceeding. It also seeks an official recognition of ones claim to a particular land and is also in rem. The titling of ancestral lands is for the purpose of officially establishing ones land as an ancestral land. Just like a registration proceeding, the titling of ancestral lands does not vest ownership upon the applicant but only recognizes ownership that has already vested in the applicant by virtue of his and his predecessor-in-interests possession of the property since time immemorial. A registration proceeding is not a conclusive adjudication of ownership. In fact, if it is later on found in another case (where the issue of ownership is squarely adjudicated) that the registrant is not the owner of the property, the real owner can file a reconveyance case and have the title transferred to his name.)