UP vs.

Segundina Rosario

Facts:
Datu Ditingke Ramos filed a application for registration in the Court of First Instance
of Quezon City for his land in Quezon City with an area of 100,000 sq.m. UP filed for
a motion for intervention alleging that the land belongs to them by virtue of a tranfer
certificate of title in their possession. The trisl court held that the property of UP was
no encroached upon so the petition was dismissed.

The Court of First Instance held that the real owner was Rosarion Alconvendras Vda.
De Ramos, datu Ditingke's wife because Datu Ditinke died.

Rosario sold the land to Segundina Rosario. But then, there a a fire and the Quezon
City Hall was burned together with the files therein. Among the papers burned was
the transfer certificate of title. Because of that, Segundina requested for a
reconstitution of the transfer certificate of title and was later granted.

UP alleged that it should be canceled and be declered as null and voic because such
are spurious and fraudulently issued.

Segundina filed with the CFI a motion to dismiss but was denied in all three instances
prompting her to go the the Court of Appeals to question such denials. The CA ruled
in favor of Segundina because the third action of UP is barred by res judicata.

Issue:
WON the Original Certificate of Title No. 17 is void ab initio by reason of the lack of
signature of the Director of lands

Ruling:
Yes, it is void because the signature of the dicrector if lands is important and
indespendable.
This case is remanded.


Director Of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila

Facts:
A land in the Province of Rizal is claimed by the municipality of Cainta, the Church
of Manila, and other persons having interests therein. The trial court gave the land to
the private individuals. The church and the munucipality appealed with the decision
but was dismissed. And then later, only the private individuals and the church are
claiming for the land.

The church contended that they have a Spanich title over the land that was given to
them by the Spanish Government and they presented witnesses. The claim of the
private persons was that they have title to the land by possession.

Issue:
Who is the real owner of the land

Ruling:
By virtue of the Royal title, the church is the legitimate owner but such ownership
may be lost by abandonment. But when the private persons claims that they were the
owners thereof, they should prove it. The church must prove that the private persons
have possession of the land but only to their tolerance.

Cadastral possession is the title to the various lots embraced in the survey which may
be settled and adjudicated.
This case is remanded. Entry of decree of registration in the Land Registration
Authority.