You are on page 1of 16

REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES AGGRIEVED BY REGISTRATION

Appeal
a. Reglementary Period: The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice
of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the
appeal shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from
the notice of the judgment or final order.
PERTINENT LAWS:
Section 30 & 33, P.D. 1529
Section 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. The
judgment rendered in a land registration proceedings becomes final upon the expiration
of thirty days to be counted from the data of receipt of notice of the judgment. An appeal
may be taken from the judgment of the court as in ordinary civil cases.
After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the court to
forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this Decree to the
Commissioner for the issuance of the decree of registration and the corresponding
certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged entitled to registration.
Section 33. Appeal from judgment, etc. The judgment and orders of the court hearing
the land registration case are appealable to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme
Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions:

Section 39, BP 129 Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980


Section 39. Appeals. The period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards,
judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from
the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from.
Sec.1(e), PD 478
Section 1. Functions and Organizations. (1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned,
it shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the
Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such
discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. It shall have the following specific
powers and functions:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

e. Represent the Government in all land registration and related proceedings. Institute
actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of public domain and
improvements thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution.
Appeal
The judgment and order of the court hearing the land registration case are appealable
to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary
actions (Section 33, P.D. No. 1529). The Rules of Court shall, insofar as not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Decree (P.D. 1529), be applicable to land registration cases
by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient
(Section 34, P.D. No. 1529.).
An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the
case or of a particular matter therein when declared bt the Rules of Court to be
appealable.
Modes of appeal:
a. Ordinary Appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional
Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of
appeal with the court which renedered the judgment or final order appealed from and
serving the copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required
except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where
the law or the Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
served in like manner.
b.

Petition for review. the appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appeallate jurisdiction shall be by petition for
review in accordance with Rule 42.

c. Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved,
the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45.

Period of ordinary appeal


The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the judgment or
final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appeal shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from the notice of the
judgment or final order.

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or
reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed.
Neypes vs CA 469 SCRA 633
In case a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration of the decision is filed and
the same is denied, the party litigant is given a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of
the final order denying his motion within which to file the notice of appeal.
Perfection of appeal
A partys appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the
notice of appeal in due time; court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of
the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties
A partys appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal in due time; court
loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon approval of the records on
appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
I.

As against the government:


It was error to disregard the Solicitor General in the execution of the compromise
agreement and its submission to the Court for approval. It is, after all, the Solicitor
General, who is the principal counsel of the Government; this is the reason for our
holding that "Court orders and decisions sent to the fiscal, acting as agent of the
Solicitor General in land registration cases, are not binding until they are actually
received by the Solicitor General." It thus appears that the compromise agreement and
the judgment approving it must be, as they are hereby, declared null and void, and set
aside. Considerations of fairness however indicate the remand of the case to the
Registration Court so that the private parties may be afforded an opportunity to
establish by competent evidence their respective claims to the property. (Republic vs.
Sayo 191 SCRA 71)
We hold that the reglementary thirty-day period for appeal should be reckoned from the
time the Solicitor General's Office was apprised of the 1970 order of denial and not from
the time the special counsel or the fiscal was served with that order. These
representatives of the Solicitor General had no power to decide whether an appeal
should be made. They should have referred the matter to the Solicitor General.
(Republic vs. CA 135 SCRA 156)

II.

Despite the pendency of the appeal, the court retains jurisdiction until the
expiration of one year from the issuance of the decree of registration.
Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration
proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the

expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of registration. This Court, in
several decisions, has held that as long as a final decree has not been entered by the
Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not
elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the
decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering it. (Gomez vs. Court of Appeals 168 SCRA 503)
Hence, the case may still be reopened and the decision set aside when granted.
It has been held that the adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case does not
become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one year from entry of the final
decree, and that as long as the final decree is not issued and the period of one year
within which it may be reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the control
and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may
even set aside said decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another. (Cayanan vs.
Estenzo 21 SCRA 134)

b. Requirements:
The requirements of our Rules of Court relative to the perfection of an appeal in an
ordinary case apply in the same manner and with equal force and effect to appeals from
a decision of a Court of First Instance in registration and cadastral proceedings." And
under the provisions of the Rules of Court then obtaining the period within which to
appeal the decision of the Court of First Instance (now, Regional Trial Court) to the
Supreme Court was thirty (30) days. (Republic vs. Estenzo 158 SCRA 282)
Appeal shall be taken within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final
order.
c. When not deemed perfected.
We hold that the decision had long become final and executory as no appeal was taken
therefrom. The certification of the acting provincial land officer of Masbate recites that
no "appeal has been taken by the Director of Lands or any private oppositors from the
decision rendered." The notation found at the foot of the last page of the reconstituted
decision, showing that the La Urbana, Inc. excepted from that decision, did not have the
effect of perfecting an appeal. An appeal was not perfected by the mere notation, "Con
mi exception." The judgment rendered in a land registration case becomes final upon
the expiration of thirty days to be counted from the date on which the party appealing

receives notice of the decision. (Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. De Banuvar 25 SCRA
316)
d. Effect of failure to appear
The title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the
period to appeal from the decision or adjudication by the cadastral court, without such
an appeal having been perfected. The certificate of title would then be necessary for
purposes of effecting registration of subsequent disposition the land where court
proceedings would no longer be necessary. (Nieto vs. Quines, 6 SCRA 74)
e. Execution pending appeal not allowed in registration proceedings.
Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. It is fraught
with dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real
properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal.
A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is
violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a
decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and
executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of Deeds concerned
issues the corresponding certificate of title. (Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177)
Motion for New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration
a. What rule to govern
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to
set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the causes
materially affecting the substantial right of said party. If the motion for trial is granted, the
judgement is set aside; if the motion for reconsideration is granted, the judgment is
merely amended. The period of filing either motion is within the period for taking, not
perfecting, an appeal. An appeal may be taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the
appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is
required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty
(30) days after notice of the judgment or final order.
i.

Grounds
The grounds are:
a. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
impaired in his rights;

b. Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered, and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the
result
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon
the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient
to justify the decision or final order or that decision ort final order is contrary to law.
i.

Failure of the partys counsel to attend trial for lack of advance notice is an
accident but not failure to attend due to forgetfulness
It was shown that the absence of counsel was explained and immediately upon receipt
of the decision, a motion for new trial, accompanied by an affidavit of merit, and a
medical certificate, were presented. Said motion for new trial could well be considered
as motion to set aside judgment or one for relief, since it contained allegations
purporting to show the presence of good defenses. The ends of justice could have been
served more appropriately had the lower court given appellant the chance to present his
evidence at least. (Talavera vs. Mangoba, 8 SCRA 837)

ii.

Failure to hire new counsel is not excusable


The allegation of counsel that he forgot to note the notice of hearing in his calendar is
flimsy. It does not constitute the accident, mistake or excusable negligence,
contemplated by the Rules of Court. The exercise of ordinary prudence on his part
could have guarded against or avoided such mistake or negligence. Counsel did not
exercise ordinary prudence because he did not perform his routine job or duty of noting
down the notice of hearing in his calendar. Lawyers should always be vigilant and alert,
in order to properly safeguard the rights and interests of their clients (Antonio vs.
Ramos, 2 SCRA 731)
b. Requisite for invoking a newly-discovered evidence as a ground for new trial
The newly discovered evidence must have the following requisites:
a. the evidence was discovered after the trial;
b. such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; and;
c. that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such
weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment. (People vs. Dela Cruz 207
SCRA 632)
Petition for Relief from Judgment
a. What rule governs?

When a judgment or final order is entered, or any proceeding is thereafter taken against
a party in any court through, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a
petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or
proceeding be set aside.
i.

Grounds
When a judgment is entered against a party through fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, such party may file a petition in the court that rendered such
judgment praying that the said judgment be set aside.

ii.

Forms of the petition


A petition for relief from judgment or from denial of appeal under Section 1 and 2, Rule
38, must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6)
months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken;
and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioners good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.
b. Who may avail of the remedy?
A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief after his
motion has been denied. These two remedies are exclusive of each other. He should
appeal from the judgment and question the denial. Relief will not be granted to a party
who seeks to be relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy at
law was due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW/ PETITION FOR REOPENING OF THE DECREE OF
REGISTRATION
Courts may reopen proceedings already closed by final decision or decree when an
application for review is filed by the party aggrieved within 1 year from the issuance of
the decree of registration.
It is a remedy separate and distinct from a motion for a new trial and right to the remedy
is not affected by denial of such a motion irrespective of grounds upon which it may
have been presented.
Who may avail?
1. Aggrieved parties in either ordinary or cadastral land registration proceedings.
2. Defaulted party may avail of the remedy. The aim of the law in giving aggrieved parties,
victimized by registration proceedings of their estate in land by means of fraud, the
opportunity to review the decree would be defeated if such parties would be limited to
those who had filed their opposition to the petition for registration or to first require them

to procure the lifting of the order of general default before they could file a petition for
review. (Rublico vs. Orellano)
3. Those who were deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration
case.
4. Homestead applicant
EXCEPT: A person who does not claim the land to be his private property but admits
the land is public.
When to file?
Petition may be filed at any time before the rendition of Courts decision and before
the expiration of one year from the entry of final decree of registration.
Essential Requisites:
a. Petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land.
b. He must show actual fraud in procurement of the decree of registration.
c. Petition must be filed within 1 year from issuance of the decree by the Land Registration
Administration.
d. The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
WALSTROM VS MAPA JR.
A decree of registration may be reopened or reviewed by the proper Regional Trial
Court upon the concurrence of five essential requisites, to wit:
(a) that the petitioner has a real and a dominical right;
(b) that he has been deprived thereof;
(c) through fraud;
(d) that the petition is filed within one year from the issuance of the decree; and
(e) that the property has not as yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value
The first element is patently not present because the petitioner cannot allege that she
has already a real and dominical right to the piece of property in controversy. The
second element is also absent since corollary to the aforecited ruling of the DANR
Secretary, the petitioner can not aver that she was deprived of property because she did
not have a real right over portion "A". The third element, the records are bereft of any
indication that there was fraud in the issuance of the certificates of title.

Intrinsic Fraud and Actual Fraud differentiated from Extrinsic Fraud


Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the
forged instruments or perjured testimony which did not affect the presentation
case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case. Actual fraud
intentional concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated

use of
of the
is the
in the

application or a willful statement of a claim against the truth, either of which is calculated
to deceive or deprive another of his legal right. While extrinsic fraud is any fraudulent
act of successful party in a litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case
against the defeated party or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated
party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of case.
The prevailing doctrine is that the Court will not set aside a judgment because it was
founded on a fraudulent instrument, or perjured evidence or for any matter which was
actually presented and considered in judgment assailed. Only actual and extrinsic fraud
will justify the review of a decree of registration.
Question: What happens if fraud is established and proven in a petition for review?
Answer: The Court may order cancellation of the decree and issuance of a new decree
and Certificate of Title in the name of the Petitioner.
The following are specific instances of actual or extrinsic fraud:
1. Deliberate misrepresentation that the los are not contested when in fact they are;
2. Applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the name of a co-owner of
land which he knows had not been allotted to him in the partition
3. Intentionally concealing facts, and conniving with the land inspector to include in the
survey plan the bed of a navigable stream
4. Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims.
5. Deliberately failing to notify the part entitled to notice
6. Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application for registration
7. Misrepresentation by the applicant about the identity of the lot to the true owner causing
rhe latter to withdraw his opposition.
8. Failure of the applicant to disclose in her application for registration the vital facts that
her husbands previous application for a revocable permit and to purchase the lands in
question from the Bureau of Lands had been rejected, because the lands were already
reserved as a site for school purposes.
9. Deliberate falsehood that the lands were allegedly inherited by the applicant from her
parents, which misled the Bureau of Lands into not filing the opposition and thus
effectively depriving the Republic of its day in court.

A Petition for reopening of the decree of registration is different from an action for
reconveyance.
HEIRS OF DOLLETON VS, FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT
Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree provides that a decree of registration
may be reopened when a person is deprived of land or an interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation obtained by actual fraud.
On the other hand, an action for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or

erroneously registered in other persons names, to its rightful and legal owners, or to
those who claim to have a better right.
In both instances, the land of which a person was deprived should be the same land
which was fraudulently or erroneously registered in another persons name, which is not
the case herein, if the Court considers the allegations in petitioners Complaints.
RECONVEYANCE
It is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of
compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him. The property is to be
transferred from the wrongfully registered owner to its rightful and legal owner. Under
this remedy, the Certificate of Title is respected as incontrovertible. After the lapse of 1
year decree of registration, the title is no longer open to review or attack although the
issuance is attended with actual fraud. But then, if the property is not yet passed to an
innocent purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance is still available. It cannot take
place against a third party who had acquired title over the registered property on good
faith and for value.
What are the requisites of an action for reconveyance?
1. Action must be brought in the name of the person claiming ownership or dominical right
over the land registered in the name of the defendant.
2. The registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or
other illegal means.
3. The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value
4. The action is filed after the certificate has become final and incontrovertible but within 4
years from the discovery of the fraud or not later than 10 years in the case of an implied
trust.
NEW REGENTS VS TANJUATCO
To warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
action must be brought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical
right over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2) the registration of the
land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal means;
(3) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; and (4) the
action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and
incontrovertible but within four years from the discovery of the fraud,or not later than 10
years in the case of an implied trust . Petitioner failed to show the presence of these
requisites.
Nature and Purpose
Reconveyance does not aim or support to re-open the registration proceeding but only
to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not
the real owner thereof. It does not seek to set aside decree but respecting the certificate

of title as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey


the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.
Petition for reopening the decree is not bar to any other remedy, prejudiced party may
file action for reconveyance of property of which had been illegally deprived, even
before the issuance of decree.
BAUTISTA-BORJA VS. BAUTISTA
If the trial court finds that the deed of sale is void, then the action for the declaration of
the contracts nullity is imprescriptible. Indeed, the Court has held in a number of cases
that an action for reconveyance of property based on a void contract does not
prescribe. However, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is merely voidable, then
the action would have already prescribed.
At all events, since the complaint on its face does not indicate that the action has
prescribed, an allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss
only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already
prescribed. Otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters
requiring a full-blown trial on the merits andcannot be determined in a mere motion to
dismiss.
Reconveyance is an action in personam.
It is an action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an
action in rem or an action against the whole world. It is an action in personam because
it is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard. It is directed against specific persons and seek personal
judgment.
Where to file?
It can be filed in Regional Trial Courts which have exclusive jurisdiction in all civil
actions which involve the title to or any interest in property where assessed value
exceeds Php 20, 000 or in Metro Manila where assessed value exceeds Php 50,000.
Action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in ordinary courts and not in Land
Registration Courts.
Quantum of Proof
It is not merely preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing evidence that
the land sought to be reconveyed is his. It is established fact of fraud that mere
allegation is not enough. Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive another party
of his right, or in some manner injure him must be alleged and proved. The property
must be identified.
The action for reconveyance may be barred by prescription

The defendant must first be able to establish by evidence that the subject property is
indeed covered by his certificate of title before he can argue that any remedy assailing
the registration thereof has prescribed.
The following are the grounds for reconveyance:
1. Fraud
Reconveyance is available in case of registration of property procured by
fraud thereby creating a constructive trust between the parties.
It must be filed within 4 years after the discovery of the alleged fraud.
Such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the original
certificate of title. Respondents claim of ownership based on possession is
untenable since no title to registered land in derogation of rights of the registered
owner shall be required by prescription or adverse possession.
2. Implied/Constructive Trust
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
prescribes in 10 years from the date of the issuance of the original certificate of
title or transfer certificate of title, for such registration constitutes constructive
notice to third persons of the respondents adverse claim to the property. To
determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for
reconveyance, plaintiffs possession of the disputed property is immaterial. The
ten-year prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the
property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. However, if the
plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains in possession of the
property, the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the property
does not run against him. Thus an action for reconveyance if in nature of a suit
for quieting of title is an action that is imprescriptible.
Implied trust may be barred not only by prescription for 10 years but also
by laches. Constructive or implied trust is exclusively created by law, laches
constitutes the bar to an action to enforce the trust, and repudiation is not
required unless there is concealment of the facts given to the trust.
3. Express trust
It is created by the intention of the parties, disables the trustee from
acquiring his own benefit a property committed to his custody or management
at least while he does not openly repudiate the trust and makes such repudiation
known to the beneficiary.
4. Void Contract
Action for reconveyance based on void contract is imprescriptible. A claim
of prescription of the action would be unavailing, and being null and void, the
subsequent sale of the property and title issued pursuant thereto produced no

legal effects whatsoever. An action for reconveyance based on a void or


inexistent contract, as where for instance there is lack of consent is
imprescriptible.
Reconveyance of land acquired through Public Patents
The right of reversion or reconveyance to the State of public properties
fraudulently registered and which are not capable of private appropriation or private
acquisition like navigable rivers which are parts of public domain does not prescribe.
The judgment of the court may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, by
the State which is not bound by any prescriptive period provided for by the Statute of
Limitations under Art. 1108 par. 4 of the Civil Code. Indefeasibility of public land patent
cannot be a bar to an investigation by the State as to such how title has been acquired,
if the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether or not fraud has been
committed in securing the title.
Action for damages:
An action for reconveyance is not feasible where the property has already passed into
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. In this case, the interested partys is to file
an action for damages against the persons responsible for depriving him of his right or
interest in the property.
Action for compensation from the Assurance Fund:
Who may file action for compensation from the Assurance fund:
a. A person, without negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is deprived
by any estate or interest in land
b. On account of the bringing of land under the Torrens system
c. Through fraud, error, omission, mistake or misdescription in the certificate of
entry in the registration book
d. Without negligence on his part and;
e. Is barred from bringing an action for recovery of land
Section 93. Contribution to Assurance Fund. Upon the entry of a certificate of title in the
name of the registered owner, and also upon the original registration on the certificate of
title of a building or other improvements on the land covered by said certificate, as well
as upon the entry of a certificate pursuant to any subsequent transfer of registered land,
there shall be paid to the Register of Deeds one-fourth of one per cent of the
assessed value of the real estate on the basis of the last assessment for taxation
purposes, as contribution to the Assurance Fund. Where the land involved has not
yet been assessed for taxation, its value for purposes of this decree shall be determined

by the sworn declaration of two disinterested persons to the effect that the value fixed
by them is to their knowledge, a fair valuation.
Nothing in this section shall in any way preclude the court from increasing the valuation
of the property should it appear during the hearing that the value stated is too small.
Section 94. Custody and investment of fund. All money received by the Register of
Deeds under the preceding section shall be paid to the National Treasurer. He shall
keep this money in an Assurance Fund which may be invested in the manner and form
authorized by law, and shall report annually to the Commissioner of the Budget the
condition and income thereof.
The income of the Assurance Fund shall be added to the principal until said fund
amounts to five hundred thousand pesos, in which event the excess income from
investments as well as from the collections of such fund shall be paid into the National
Treasury to the account of the Assurance Fund.
Reversion:
An action for reversion seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed
of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain. The objective of
an action for reversion of public land is the cancellation of the certificate of title
and the resulting reversion of the land covered by the title to the state.
Who institutes: The action is instituted by the Government through the solicitor
general.
Grounds for reversion:
a. In all cases where lands of public domain are held in violation of the Constitution.
b. Where lands of the public domain are fraudulently obtained.
It was held in the case of Hermosilla vs. Remoquillo that if the property was previously
a public land, petitioners have no personality to impute fraud or misrepresentation
against the State or violation of the law. If the title was in fact fraudulently obtained, it is
the State which should file the suit to recover the property through the Office of the
Solicitor General. The title originated from a grant by the government, hence, its
cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee. At all events, for an action
for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the petitioners must prove by clear and
convincing evidence not only his title to the property but also the fact of fraud. Fraud is
never presumed. Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some
manner injure him must be specifically alleged and proved by the petitioners by clear
and convincing evidence. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden, however.

From the allegations of the Complaint, petitioners seek the reconveyance of the
property based on implied trust. The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of
fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance
of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession, but Imprescriptible if he is in
possession of the property. It is undisputed that petitioners houses occupy the
questioned property and that respondents have not been in possession thereof. Since
there was no actual need to reconvey the property as petitioners remained in
possession thereof, the action took the nature of a suit for quieting of title, it having been
filed to enforce an alleged implied trust after Jaime refused to segregate title over Lot
19.One who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof
may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his right. From the body of the complaint, this type of action denotes
imprescriptibility.
In the case of Yujuico vs. Republic, it was held that the action of the Government for
reversion on the ground that the land was part of Manila bay was improperly filed with
the RTC as the action should have been filed with the Court of Appeals pursuant to rule
47 of the Rules of Court governing annulment of judgments of RTCs.
Cancellation of suits:A cancellation of the decree of registration and Torrens title can
only be done if said titles were issued through fraud.
Annulment of Judgment: Under rule 47 of the Rules of Court, Annulment of Judgment
is a recourse equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
are no longer available through no fault of petitioner. Section 2 of the said Rule provides
that the annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction, although jurisprudence recognizes denial of due process as an additional
ground.
A petition for annulment of judgment of final orders of the RTC shall be brought to the
Court of Appeals when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal etc. are no longer
available and must be based on extrinsic fraud and lack of Jurisdiction.
A petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within 4
years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches
or estoppel
Quieting of title: The action to quiet title, or remove clouds from title, to real estate, is a
well-established remedy. It has for its purpose the quieting of title or removal of a cloud
therefrom when there is an apparently valid or effective instrument or other claim which
in reality is void, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable. In the Philippines, Article 476 of
the New Civil Code provides the substantive law on the matter, while Rule 63 of the

Rules of Court provides for the procedure in bringing an action to quiet title, or to
remove clouds, from title to real property.
Criminal action:
Article 312 of the revised penal code:
Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. Any person who,
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any
real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition
to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a
fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less
than 75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be
imposed.
Article 313 of the revised penal code states thatany person who shall alter the boundary
marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 100 pesos, or both.