1.)DENR et al VS.

YAP et al
G.R. No. 167707
October 8, 2008
FACTS:
On November 10, 1978, then President Marcos issued Proc. No. 1801 declaring
Boracay Island, among other islands, caves and peninsulas in the Philippines, as
tourist zones and marine reserves under the administration of the Philippine Tourism
Authority (PTA). President Marcos later approved the issuance of PTA Circular 3-82
dated September 3, 1982, to implement Proclamation No. 1801.
Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82 precluded them from
filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for
titling purposes, respondents-claimants Mayor . Yap, Jr., and others filed a petition
for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan
In their petition, respondents-claimants alleged that Proc. No. 1801 and PTA Circular
No. 3-82 raised doubts on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands. They
declared that they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay
since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They declared their lands for
tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them. Respondents-claimants posited that
Proclamation No. 1801 and its implementing Circular did not place Boracay beyond
the commerce of man. Since the Island was classified as a tourist zone, it was
susceptible of private ownership. Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, they
had the right to have the lots registered in their names through judicial confirmation
of imperfect titles.
The Republic, through the OSG, opposed the petition for declaratory relief. The OSG
countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It
formed part of the mass of lands classified as “public forest,” which was not
available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Revised Forestry Code, as
amended. The OSG maintained that respondents-claimants’ reliance on PD No. 1801
and PTA Circular No. 3-82 was misplaced. Their right to judicial confirmation of title
was governed by Public Land Act and Revised Forestry Code, as amended. Since
Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable and disposable, whatever
possession they had cannot ripen into ownership.
On July 14, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents-claimants,
declaring that, “PD 1810 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 Revised Forestry Code, as
amended.
The OSG moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied. The Republic then
appealed to the CA. On In 2004, the appellate court affirmed in toto the RTC
decision. Again, the OSG sought reconsideration but it was similarly denied. Hence,
the present petition under Rule 45.
On May 22, 2006, during the pendency the petition in the trial court, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island partly
reserved forest land (protection purposes) and partly agricultural land (alienable and
disposable).
On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Sacay,and other landowners in Boracay
filed with this Court an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification
of Proclamation No. 1064. They allege that the Proclamation infringed on their “prior
vested rights” over portions of Boracay. They have been in continued possession of
their respective lots in Boracay since time immemorial.
On November 21, 2006, this Court ordered the consolidation of the two petitions

ISSUE:
Whether private claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied portions
in Boracay.
HELD: petitions DENIED. The CA decision is reversed.
Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land
of the public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are
considered public forest under PD No. 705.
PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the
public domain as public forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a public forest as
“a mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the subject of the present
system of classification for the determination of which lands are needed for forest
purpose and which are not.” Applying PD No. 705, all unclassified lands, including
those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered public forests. PD No. 705,
however, respects titles already existing prior to its effectivity.
The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or
timber, such classification modified by the 1973 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution
reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one addition: national parks. Of
these, only agricultural lands may be alienated. Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of
May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively
classified under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of
the public domain.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with
the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that
there must be a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation
or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also secure
a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed
for the required number of years is alienable and disposable. The burden of proof in
overcoming such presumption is on the person applying for registration (or claiming
ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.
In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action,
report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of
evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private
claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They
call for proof.
Proc. No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island
as alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended to classify the island
as alienable and disposable or forest, or both, he would have identified the specific
limits of each, as President Arroyo did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not done
in Proclamation No. 1801.
2.) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CA et. al.
G.R. No. 155450
August 6, 2008
FACTS:
On 2 June 1930, the then Court of First Instance of Cagayan (trial court) issued
Decree No. 3819284 in favor of spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria Turingan
(spouses Carag), predecessors-in-interest of private respondents Heirs of Antonio
Carag and Victoria Turingan (private respondents), covering a parcel of land

and (B) Petitioner Bienvenida Taguiam Vda. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. are not covered by the classification requirement in Section 8 for purposes of disposition.Hence. Cagayan. Crown lands were per se alienable unless falling under timber or mineral zones. the petition is DENIED. when the trial court issued the decision for the issuance of Decree No. 3. Lot 736 has a total area of about 1. 381928. OCT No. 68 years after the issuance of Decree No. cancellation and declaration of nullity of titles9 on the ground that in 1930 the trial court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a portion of the subject property. this petition. Cadastral Lot 736 (Lot 736).300 square meters and is part of Lot 3. Petitioner has not alleged that the disputed portion had not become private property prior to the enactment of Act No. INC. 1982. the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. De Dayag and others have possessed and occupied by themselves and thru their predecessors-in-interest the portion of the lot since time immemorial. therefore. a letter-petition requesting the DENR to initiate the filing of an action for the annulment of Decree No. as a ground for annulment of judgment.T.identified as Lot No. 2874.921 square meters. 2007 FACTS: The lot in dispute. or 78 years ago. May 29. during the Spanish regime or thereafter. even as Section 1. pursuant to Decree No. 381928 was issued in 1930 was Act No. Cagayan. including the disputed portion. Tuguegarao. The Regional Executive Director of the DENR created an investigating team to conduct ground verification and ocular inspection of the subject property.997. Section 8 of Act No. 151. Cad. Also. No. On 19 May 1994. De Dayag and others filed with the Regional Office No. Petitioner has not alleged that the Governor-General had declared the disputed portion of the subject property timber or mineral land pursuant to Section 6 of Act No. as well as lands on which a private claim may be made under any law. which was a party in the original proceedings in the trial court as required by law. On 2 July 1952. Article XII of the 1935 Constitution declared that all agricultural. with respect to lands excluded from the classification requirement in Section 8. Pangasinan. Since the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. pursuant to said Decree. covering Lot 2472-B consisting of 100. lease or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into (a) Alienable or disposable (b) Timber and (c) Mineral lands and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another. the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject property.000 square meters and (2) issued in the name of the private respondents. 11585 was cancelled to discharge the encumbrance expressly stated in Decree No. Clearly. timber and mineral lands of the public domain belong to the State. The government. or otherwise reserved for some public purpose in accordance with law. The law prevailing when Decree No.) RURAL BANK OF ANDA. 381928. The trial court determined that the land was agricultural and that spouses Carag proved that they were entitled to the decree and a certificate of title. timber or mineral land.Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the statute in force at the time of the filing of the action. 2874 provides that lands which are already private lands.R. the Register of Deeds of Cagayan issued Original Certificate of Title No. 11585) in the name of spouses Carag. did not appeal the decision of the trial court declaring the subject land as agricultural. including the disputed portion. 381928. is now final and beyond review. or reserved by the State for some public purpose in accordance with law In this case. grant. refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. applied for was agricultural. 155051. its decision rendered in 1930. However. upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Lot 3 is bounded on the north by Lot 1 of Plan II-5201-A and on the .047.The investigating team reported thatA) The portion of the lot was found to be still within the timberland area at the time of the issuance of the Decree and O.673 square meters (subject property)." When the Commonwealth Government was established under the 1935 Constitution. was not alienable and disposable until 22 February 1982 when the disputed portion was classified as alienable and disposable. containing an area of 7. 2472. Furthermore. and the same was only released as alienable and disposable on February 22. petitioner has not alleged that the disputed portion had been declared as mineral or forest zone. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LINGAYEN-DAGUPAN G. trial courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate these lands to private parties.C. 381928 in 1930. Neither has petitioner alleged that the disputed portion was not land on which a private right may be claimed under any existing law at that time. This exclusion in Section 8 recognizes that during the Spanish regime. Under the Spanish regime. ISSUE: Whether the then Court of First Instance of Cagayan had jurisdiction to adjudicate a tract of timberland in favor of respondent spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria Turingan HELD: Lack of jurisdiction. covering Lot 2472-A consisting of 6. 115855 (OCT No. 2874. Therefore. 2874. for the purposes of their government and disposition. On 19 July 1938. VS. 2 of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Bienvenida Taguiam Vda. 381928 issued in 1930 by the trial court. The Governor-General. spouses Carag had already an existing right to the subject land. is located in the Poblacion of Binmaley. Two transfer certificates of title were issued: (1) issued in the name of the Province of Cagayan. 381928 on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a portion of the subject property which was allegedly still classified as timber land at the time of the issuance of Decree No. 381928 and. situated in Tuguegarao. WHEREFORE. all Crown lands were per se alienableunless specifically declared as mineral or forest zone. it recognized that these lands were "subject to any existing right. The disputed portion was allegedly still classified as timber land at the time of issuance of Decree No. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint because of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. or reserved for some public purpose in accordance with law.26 which provides: SECTION 6. of the spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria Turingan. petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a complaint for annulment of judgment.

[17] Thus. another group (Haribon. Lot 736 remains part of the public domain and is owned by the state. which are all located on lots adjoined to Lot 736. waters. 8371). al). 104 and 105 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley are valid. which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable public lands. 105 which authorized the municipal mayor to enter into a contract of lease for 25 years with the Rural Bank of Anda over a portion of Lot 736 with an area of 252 square meters. The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part. minerals.[15] In other words. otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). which adjoins Lot 3 on the north. in relation to section 3(a). that IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandamus be dismissed. An annotation on TCT 6375 states that the ownership of Lot 3 is being claimed by both respondent and the Municipality of Binmaley. it is outside the commerce of man. a group of intervenors (Flavier. On 22 December 1997.A. forests or timber. This is in accordance with the Regalian doctrine which holds that the state owns all lands and waters of the public domain.south by the national road. In 1958. et al. . Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen. respondents Secretary of DENR and Secretary of the DBM filed through the SolGen a consolidated Comment. (1) Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains. Respondents who were the chairperson and commisioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).[14] Lot 736 was also used for parking and playground. the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley. respondent filed a complaint for Abatement of Illegal Constructions. Resolution Nos.[18] Since Lot 736 is owned by the state. and Section 3(b) which. 4. the director of the seminary. the records reveal otherwise. Article XII of the Constitution: The records show that Lot 736 is used as a pathway going to the school. 104 and 105 are void and consequently. Arenos. Pangasinan. et. in turn. et al. and the government agency created under the IPRA to implement its provisions defended the constitutionality of the IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. HELD: The petition has no merit. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Thus. passed and approved Resolution Nos. On November 1998. Both respondent and the Municipality of Binmaley failed to prove their right over Lot 736. However. Lot 1 of Plan II-5201-A. ISSUE: Whether Resolution Nos. Thus. the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley. SECRETARY of DENR FACTS: Respondent claims Lot 736 based on its alleged open. On March 1999. Both respondent and the Municipality of Binmaley admit that they do not have title over Lot 736. flora and fauna. mineral and other resources The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff [Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan holding that Lot 736 is not covered by any Torrens title either in the name of respondent or in the name of the Municipality of Binmaley. and uninterrupted possession of Lot 736. Pangasinan exceeded its authority when it adopted Resolution Nos. On October 1998. the seminary. Lot 736 was used by the public in general. the contract of lease between the Municipality of Binmaley and the Rural Bank of Anda over a portion of Lot 736 is also void. The trial court held that Lot 736 is public in nature. wildlife. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein. Municipal corporations cannot appropriate to themselves public or government lands without prior grant from the government. 104 and 105 converting Lot 736 from an institutional lot to a commercial lot and authorizing the municipal mayor to enter into a contract of lease for 25 years with the Rural Bank of Anda. and other mineral oils. all forces of potential energy. Section 2 of the Constitution: All lands of the public domain. (2) Section 5. filed a motion to Intervene with attached Comment-in-Intervention. under Article XII. fisheries. Mayor Domalanta informed respondent that the construction of the building of the Rural Bank of Anda would resume. Since Lot 736 is property of public dominion. continuous. On March 1999. in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2. However. The Assistant Chief of the Aggregate Survey Section of the Land Management Services in Region I testified that no document of ownership for Lot 736 was ever presented to their office. is titled in the name of respondent Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen (respondent) under Transfer Certificate of Title No. petroleum. The motions for intervention of the aforesaid groups and organizations were granted. In front of Lot 736 is the building of Mary Help of Christians Seminary (seminary) which is on Lot 1.). 104 and 105. 6375 (TCT 6375). the Commission on Human Rights likewise filed a Motion to Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae and asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples. Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers. defines ancestral lands. coal. 104 which converted Lot 736 from an institutional lot to a commercial lotand Resolution No. bodies of water. the Rector of the seminary ordered the construction of the fence separating Lot 736 from the national road to prevent the caretelas from parking because the smell of horse manure was already bothering the priests living in the seminary. He thereafter requested Mayor Domalanta to remove the sawali fence and restore the concrete fence. assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions and implementing rules of (R. discovered that a sawali fence was being constructed enclosing a portion of Lot 736 for the construction of the building for the Rural Bank of Anda. adverse. Pangasinan. In December 1997. or the church. Fr. They agree with the NCIP and Flavier.)CRUZ vs. joined the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of IPRA and praying for the dismissal of the petition. Since Lot 736 has never been acquired by anyone through purchase or grant or any other mode of acquisition. Thus. and other natural resources are owned by the state. the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley exceeded its authority in passing Resolution Nos.

Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 6.R. However. the foreclosure proceeding has no legal effect. a foreclosure sale proceeded with the TRB as the sole and winning bidder. once a title is registered the owner may rest secure. The Land Registration Act (Act 496) affords no remedy. That being the purpose of the law. Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. There exists and has existed a number of years a stone wall between the said lots. Court of Appeals. or sitting in the “mirador de su casa. 1999 (315 SCRA 190) FACTS: A parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay was mortgaged to and subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by Traders Royal Bank (TRB). Hence the court ruled that the subsequent buyers obtained the property from a clean title in good faith and for value. the petition is DISMISSED. the Capays filed a petition for preliminary injunction alleging the mortgage was void because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan. The Supreme Court dismissed the case pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. of title for the Capays. et al G.They immediately presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error committed by including said wall in the registered title of each of said parties. Pending its appeal before the court. wildlife sanctuaries. To prevent property sale in public auction. they failed to make any objection to the registration of said lot. The Capays title was cancelled and a new one was entered in TRB’s name without the notice of lis pendens carried over the title. Said registration and certificate included the wall. or which may arise subsequent thereto. after redeliberation. After they filed the notice for lis pendens. development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains. (4) Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains. the court decreed the registration of said title and issued the original certificate provided for under the Torrens system. They did not take any action for 15 years to find out the status of the title upon knowing the foreclosure of the property. The plaintiffs. 118862. in the name of the defendant. Saleeby FACTS: The plaintiffs and the defendant occupy. March 2. in the certificate. presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their lot. which decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should be registered and issued to them the original certificate provided for under the Torrens system. renewable for not more than 25 years. it can be construed that where two certificates purports to include the same registered land. ISSUE: Who has the better right over the land in dispute in the present case? HELD: The purchasers in good faith. TRB was held to be in bad faith upon selling the property while knowing it is pending for litigation. (3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands. the voting remained the same. However. Said wall is located on the lot of the plaintiffs. The court ruled that a Torrens title is presumed to be valid which purpose is to avoid conflicts of title to real properties. protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds. In consideration to the declaration of the mortgage as null and void for want of consideration. Hence. develop. is to quiet the title of the land. pursuant to Rule 56. without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court. Sept. Court rendered a decision declaring the mortgage was void for want of consideration and thus cancelled TRB’s title and issued a new cert. and (7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain. Court ruled that the subsequent buyers cannot be considered purchasers for value and in good faith since they purchase the land after it became a subject in a pending suit before the court. Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Accordingly. On one hand. The description of the lot given in the petition of the defendant also included said wall. without notice to the defendant. The law guarantees the title of the registered owner once it has entered into the Torrens system. the case was redeliberated upon. The lower court however. 1912. The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration. On March 25.) Legarda vs. However. and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years.Every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged to interpret what is beyond the face of the registered title. ISSUE: WON IPRA or Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? HELD: NO. wilderness. No. Although the lis pendens notice was not carried over the titles. When the subsequent buyers bought the property there was no lis pendens annotated on the title. The Capays were issued the cert. ancestral domains may include natural resources – somehow against the regalian doctrine. of title of the land in dispute while TRB is to pay damages to Capays. extraction.) Traders Royal Bank vs. denied said petition upon the theory that. adjoining lots in the district of Ermita in the city of Manila. As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained. including the wall. (6) Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting. ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and the land occupied by it? HELD: For the issue involved. to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title. The Capays filed recovery of the property and damages. Patria Capay. Meanwhile. 1912 the plaintiffs discovered that the wall which had been included in the certificate granted to them had also been included in the certificate granted to the defendant . forest cover or reforestation. the same was not annotated in the TRB title.found within ancestral domains are private but community property of the indigenous peoples. except claims which were noted at the time of registration.” to avoid the possibility of losing his land. TRB sold the land to Santiago who subsequently subdivided and sold to buyers who were issued title to the land. A notice of lis pendens (suit pending) was filed before the Register of Deeds with the notice recorded in the Day Book. Therefore. during the pendency of the petition for the registration of the defendant’s land. the holder of the earlier one continues to hold title and will prevail. 24. (5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands. the . protected areas. the Capays are guilty of latches. Later the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of the lot now occupied by him. mangroves. since the SC failed to obtain a mjaority vote twice. On December 13. 5. as owners. in as much as the Capays remain to be the real owner of the property it has already been passed to purchasers in good faith and for value. its recording in the Day Book constitutes registering of the land and notice to all persons with adverse claim over the property. 1906.

Thus. Urdaneta.R.608-square-meter portion of Lot No. except as to the petitioner. as well as those involving substantial issues. DENR. On July 17. it was not notified of the survey conducted. 7. No. A year later OCT No. No. Meanwhile. SC: CA’s Decisio and Resolution are AFFIRMED. After all.D. Until the receipt by the Court of a copy of the resolution of the petition for cancellation by the DENR. once the title is registered under the said law.property cannot be taken away to their prejudice. RTC: The Court granted the instant motion and suspends the proceedings. Pangasinan an application for registration of a parcel of land located in Barangay Anonas. respondent commenced the presentation of evidence. Emphasizing that a survey plan is one of the mandatory requirements in land registration proceedings.. Case 5 of the cadastral survey of Cagayan. Madayag filed with RTC of Urdaneta. ANGELA V. 1529) is to finally settle title to real property in order to preempt any question on the legality of the title – except claims that were noted on the certificate itself at the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto. petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings 7 in the land registration case. Petitioner. demanding the cancellation of the respondent’s survey plan because the lot encroached on the properties it recently purchased from several lot owners and that.R. HELD: Every order suspending proceedings must be guided by the following precepts: it shall be done in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations. Pangasinan Attached to the application was a Survey Plan approved by the Land Management Services (LMS) of the DENR (Region 1).R. which together comprised a 51. Land registration courts. . MADAYAG. These parcels of land were covered by separate certificates of title. TRB is duty bound to pay the Capays the fair market value of the property at the time they sold it to Santiago. 2001. that it was approved by the Land Registration Commission and previously covered by Survey Plan approved by the Bureau of Lands. Later. wrote the Chief. confusion between litigants and courts.. 8. or when the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled and none of the circumstances that would justify the stay of proceedings is present. On August 20. The RTC of Urdaneta. OCT No. petitioner formally filed with the DENR a petition for cancellation of the survey plan. Petitioner then manifested its opposition to the respondent’s application for registration. The CA ratiocinated that the survey plan which was duly approved by the DENR should be accorded the presumption of regularity. the latter is deemed to have all the necessary powers to exercise such jurisdiction to make it effective. vs. 2009 SM PRIME HOLDINGS. 0-762 covered Lots 3843-A and 3843-B. as such. The RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms part of already titled property. Petitioner filed its formal opposition. Urdaneta City. No. FACTS: Respondent Angela V. the CA granted the petition for certiorari. as per advised by the DENR Legal Services and Public Affairs. the RTC agreed with the petitioner that the cancellation of the survey plan would be prejudicial to the petition for land registration. 3843. It may.) G. Inc. and the heirs of Romulo Visperas also filed their respective oppositions. INC. and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. 0-762 was issued to Carmel Realty and Development Corporation (Carmel). owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession. through counsel. the RTC declared a general default. Respondent. Pangasinan is DIRECTED to continue with the proceedings in L. the instant case is hereby ARCHIVED. 2002. Republic of the Philippines. despite being the new owner of the adjoining lots. conflicting judgments. 1795 withdrew from sale or settlement and reserved for cultural site purposes Lot No. 164687 February 12. hear and determine all questions that arise from a petition for registration. therefore. alleging that the court should await the DENR resolution of the petition for the cancellation of the survey plan "as the administrative case is prejudicial to the determination" of the land registration case. Cad-237. P. Petitioner alleged that it had recently bought seven parcels of land in Barangay Anonas. Region X. Regional Survey Division. and that the RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions arising from an application for registration. The fundamental purpose of the Land Registration Law (Presidential Decree No. When the law confers jurisdiction upon a court.) G. 193785 Imperial Development Corporation v. ISSUE/s: WON THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE LAND REGISTRATION CASE IS LEGAL AND PROPER PENDING THE DETERMINATION AND RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE BEFORE DENR -REGION 1. Cagayan de Oro City FACTS: Presidential Proclamation No. represented by the . Case and to resolve the same with dispatch.C. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the latter’s limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a land registration court. some of which are already in the name of the petitioner while the others are still in the name of the previous owners. to await the resolution of the petition for cancellation would only delay the resolution of the land registration case and undermine the purpose of land registration. 3843. CA: Finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the proceedings. Thereafter. The Republic of the Philippines. In fact.Regional Executive Director. DENR. a survey plan precisely serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration. petitioner SM Prime Holdings. through the Office of the Solicitor General. The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondent’s survey plan vis-à-vis the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. Consequently. can now hear and decide even controversial and contentious cases.

Jambrich and respondent fell in love and decided to live together. the idyll lasted only until April 1991. arrived in the after he was assigned by his employer.00. DESCALLAR.000. To pay for his debt.By virtue of a Confirmation of Sale5. indefeasibility does not obtain when the title to the land or decree is void due to reasons other than fraud. TCT No. as evidenced by a "Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment. On 6 February 2003. an Austrian. Carmel conveyed Lots 3843-A and 3843-B to petitioner. and. After awhile. FACTS: Wilhelm Jambrich. 9. It also prayed for the reversion of Lots 3843-A and 3843-B to the mass of land of public domain. no defense grounded on laches or prescription can be sustained thereon. a Complaint against Carmel and petitioner. ISSUE/s: WON CA COMMITTED MANIFEST AND SERIOUS ERROR BY ITS FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING IN REM PROCEEDINGS IN CADASTRAL CASES. A Deed of Absolute Sale was likewise issued in their favor. Consequently. Moritz Hotel with an income of P1. such as when it was issued by mistake and oversight because the land was in reality inalienable. Evidence on hand clearly show that at the time of the purchase and acquisition of the properties under litigation that Wilhelm Jambrich was still working and earning much and clearly show that before defendant met Jambrich sometime in the latter part of 1984. for which he became indebted to the latter for about P150. including the national government. Petitioner then filed a complaint against respondent for recovery of real property before the RTC of Mandaue City. ANTONIETTA O. LACK OF EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION AND POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. RTC: RTC dismissed the complaint of the Republic." 6 However. In 1984. Respondent.. Jambrich’s name was erased from the document and so Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) over the properties were issued in respondent’s name alone. HELD: . RTC: The trial court upheld the sale by Jambrich in favor of petitioner and ordered the cancellation of the TCTs in the name of respondent. However. The Republic alleged that these two lots were not susceptible to private acquisition. Jambrich met petitioner Camilo F. In the Contracts to Sell covering some properties. SC: The petition is DENIED. respondent found a new boyfriend while Jambrich began to live with another woman. Petitioner alleged that the Contracts to Sell and the Deed of Absolute Sale over the properties which identified both Jambrich and respondent as buyers do not reflect the true agreement of the parties since respondent did not pay a single centavo of the purchase price and was not in fact a buyer. when the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the Register of Deeds. Jambrich asked respondent to tutor him in English. 1795. a separated mother of two boys who was working as a waitress at St. registration was refused on the ground that Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain. an Austrian company. Moritz Hotel. he discovered that titles to the three lots have been transferred in the name of respondent. RES JUDICATA. vs. The Complaint of the Republic was reinstated. However. that it was Jambrich alone who paid for the properties using his exclusive funds. In this jurisdiction.00 a month. The final judgment became conclusive upon and against all persons. T-30720 in the name of petitioner. as they were within the cultural center site reserved under Proclamation No. and that the subject property has already been mortgaged. that petitioner acquired absolute ownership by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment which Jambrich executed in his favor. he transferred in Cebu for worked. In these cases. he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to petitioner for P250. He then met respondent Antonietta Opalla-Descallar. she was only working as a waitress at the St. Considering the degree of public interest involved as the government proceeds to assert its rights and recover its property. CA: CA reversed and set aside the RTC Order. The RTC observed that no petition for the reopening of the land registration case had been filed by the Republic within the one-year period from the issuance of OCT considering that a certificate of title shall become incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from its issuance. Simmering-Graz Panker A. No. On even date. Likewise.000. Borromeo who was engaged in the real estate business. By then. 159310 CAMILO F.R. 0-762 and all derivative titles issued thereunder. Jambrich also adopted the 2 sons of the respondent. respondent belied the allegation.G. ISSUE/s: WON JAMBRICH HAS NO TITLE TO THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION CONSIDERING THAT THE SAID PROPERTIES WERE SOLELY REGISTERED UNDER THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT. we have had a number of occasions to rule that the indefeasibility of titles does not operate to deprive the State of its right to recover lands of the public domain from private ownership. Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from petitioner. or when the grantee violated the conditions for the homestead patent grant. the Republic filed before the RTC. BORROMEO. The Complaint was for cancellation of OCT No. February 24. 2009 Petitioner.000. that Jambrich was the real and absolute owner of the properties. the State may seek the cancellation of the certificate of title and reversion of the land to the mass of land of public domain even after the lapse of one violated year from the issuance of the title. He also built and repaired speedboats as a hobby. and the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings. Sometime in1986. It also emphasized that the right of reversion to the State is not barred by prescription. In her Answer. Jambrich and respondent were referred to as the buyers. The CA pointed out the Republic's contention that Lots 3843-A and 3843-B are inalienable lands of public domain. particularly TCT No. to work at a project in Mindoro. T-307206 was issued in the name of petitioner. The Decision and Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro City are AFFIRMED. HELD: Reversion is a remedy availed of by the State to place inalienable land found under private ownership back to the public domain. CA: Reversed the decision of the trial court. when petitioner sought to register the deed of assignment.) G. if the lands were obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.

as when the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject properties for a valuable consideration. The attachment was eventually cancelled by virtue of a compromise agreement between the Tecsons and their attaching creditor which was brokered by respondent. as pointed out by the trial court. .25 This is the situation in the instant case. Finding no defect on the titles. the titles of nine (9) lots. respondent purchased the nine lots through a Deed of Conditional Sale on 6 November 1992. INC. (hereinafter referred to as respondent) asked someone to check. 171008 September 13. It is only a means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large. on 30 August 1993. 24 However. the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not necessarily. respondent and the Tecsons executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same properties. but the Register of Deeds refused to issue titles to the remaining three (3) lots . it is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. (ii) declaring the deed of sale between petitioner and spouses Tecson invalid. on its behalf. Respondent did not contribute a single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She had no income of her own at that time. Facts: Sometime in July 1992. there are well-defined exceptions to this rule.. (v) dismissing Asuncion’s claim for damages against petitioner for lack of factual basis. The respondent filed its Complaintfor Quieting Of Title &/Or Recovery Of Ownership. Later. conclusively and absolutely make her the owner. because the titles covering the same were still unaccounted for. The mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of the property. respondent learned that the Register of Deeds had already registered the deed of sale in favor of petitioner and issued a new title herein. Inc. Issue: Is the issuance of Deed of Sale valid? Held: On 31 October 2001. (iii) ordering the registration of the subject land in favor of respondent. absolute and indefeasible. The Register of Deeds refused to actually annotate the deed of sale on the titles because of the existing notice of attachment pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. 23 and that it is perfect. nor did she have any savings. Thus. The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply to respondent. which it intended to buy from the spouses Troadio and Asuncion Tecson.R. VELASCO. Subsequently. Respondent. and (vi) dismissing petitioner’s counterclaim for lack of the required preponderance of evidence. Petitioner vs. 2007 CARMELITAFUDOT. JR. A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet. Having found that the true buyer of the disputed house and lots was the Austrian Wilhelm Jambrich. 10. CATTLEYA LAND. the subject land included.The evidence clearly shows. JJ. The Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale were registered with the Register of Deeds on 06 November 1992 and 04 October 1993. the trial court rendered its decision: (i) quieting the title or ownership of the subject land in favor of respondent. Cancellation Of Title With Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. Titles to six (6) of the nine (9) lots were issued. Cattleya Land. who between respondent and Jambrich possesses the financial capacity to acquire the properties in dispute. respectively. She and her two sons were then fully supported by Jambrich. Certificates of title are not a source of right. (iv) dismissing respondent’s claim for damages against the Register of Deeds for insufficiency of evidence. No.) G..