You are on page 1of 71


Motion for New Trial

15 days from notice of judgment (period for taking an



1. Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence which

ordinary prudence could not have guarded against

2. Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with

reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the
shall be proved in the manner provided for
proof of motions;

supported by affidavits of merits which may be

rebutted by affidavits;

supported by affidavits of witness or duly

authenticated documents.

must be proven that there was fraud in the procurement thereof,

and that the trick or devise was employed to prevent the
adversary from presenting from presenting his defense or to
conceal from him the pendency of an action

Extrinsic fraud: committed outside the trial of the case against

the defeated party, whereby said party is prevented from
presenting fully and fairly his side of the case

Intrinsic fraud: committed during the trial by a party in litigation,

which did not prevent the presentation of the case, but prevented
a fair and just determination of the case.

must be proven that there was

accident or surprise which ordinary
prudence could have not guarded

Example: illness, lack of advance


unintentional act, ommission, or error

arising from ignorance, surprise,
imposition or misplaced confidence.

may also arise from unconsciousness

or forgetfulness

failure to take the proper steps at the proper time,

not in the consequence of the party’s own
carelessness, inattention, or wilful disregard of the
process of the court but in consequence of some
unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident

may also arise from the reliance on the care and

vigilance of his counsel or on promises made by
the adverse party
Affidavit of Merit

Affidavit which recites the

nature and character of the
FAME on which the motion is
based and movant’s good and
substantial cause of action or
defence and the evidence
which he intends to present if
the motion is granted.
Two Affidavits Required

MNT based on FAME

First affidavit: sets forth the facts and circumstances

alleged to constitute FAME

Second affidavit: affidavit of merits, setting forth the

particular facts claimed to constitute the movant’s
meritorious cause of action or defense
Motion for Reconsideration

within the same period


1. damages awarded are excessive

2. evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or

final order

3. decision or final order is contrary to law

shall point out specifically the findings or
conclusions of the judgment or final order

1. are not supported by the evidence, or

2. which are contrary to law

making express reference to the testimonial or

documentary evidence or to the provisions of
law alleged to be contrary to such findings or
Contents and Form of the

1. made in writing;

2. stating the ground or grounds therefor;

3. written notice of which shall be served by

the movant on the adverse party
pro forma MNT or MR shall not toll the
reglementary period of appeal

no motion for extension of time to file

MNT or MR is allowed
A Motion is Pro Forma when:

1. there is no proper notice of the motion;

2. unverified motion or motion not accompanied by affidavit of merits;

3. motion fails to specify error of facts and of law or is a mere reiteration

of the evidence presented in the trial court;

4. motion is a reiteration ground already discussed in the memorandum;

5. based on existing grounds

6. MNT is identical to the MR and based exactly on the very same ground
alleged in the MR
if Motion for New Trial is GRANTED:
Judgment is set aside

if Motion for Reconsideration is

GRANTED: Judgment is merely
Rule 41, ROC, in relation to
Sec. 33, PRD

No appeal may be be taken from:

1. an order denying MNT or MR;

2. an order denying petition for relief or any similar motion

seeking relief from judgment;

3. an interlocutory order;

4. an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;

5. an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by
consent, confession, or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;

6. an order of execution;

7. a judgment or final order for or against one or more of

several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-
claims and third-party claims, while the main case is
pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and

8. an order dismissing the action without prejudice.

Final Judgement or Order

one that finally disposes of the

case, leaving nothing more to be
done by the Court in respect
Modes of Appeal

1. Ordinary Appeal

2. Petition for Review (Rule 42)

3. Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45)

Ordinary Appeal

appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in

the exercise of its original jurisdiction

shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with

the court which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and serving a copy thereof
upon the adverse party.

notice of appeal shall be filed within 15 days

from notice of judgment
if record on appeal is required, appellant
shall file a notice of appeal and a record
on appeal within 30 days from notice of
judgment or final order

period of appeal shall be interrupted by a

timely MNT or MR
Perfection of Appeal

A. Appeal by Notice of Appeal:

- court loses jurisdiction over the case upon

perfection of appeal filed in due time and the
expiration of time to appeal of the other party

- perfected as to appellant by filing of the

notice of appeal in due time
B. Appeal by Record on Appeal:

- court loses jurisdiction only over the subject

matter thereof upon the approval of the records
on appeal filed in due time and the expiration
of the time to appeal of the other party

- perfected as to appellant with respect to the

subject matter upon the approval of the record
on appeal filed in due time.
Petition for Review

appeal to the CA in cases decided by

the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction
Appeal by Certiorari

in all cases where only questions of

law are raised or involved, the appeal
shall be to the SC by Petition for
Review on Certiorari
Martinez v. Republic

a defaulted party may still avail of

the remedy of appeal from the
judgment by default and assail said
judgment on the ground that the
plaintiff failed to prove the material
allegations of the complaint or that
the decision is contrary to law, even
without need to file a prior motion
to set aside the order of default
Rule 38, ROC


filed in such court from whose judgment relief is being sought

relief provided for is of equitable character, allowed only under

exceptional cases, as when there is no other available or
adequate remedy

relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved

from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy
was due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of

1. must be verified

2. must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the

judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, but not
more than 6 months after such judgment or final order was

3. must be accompanied with affidavit of merit/affidavits showing

FAME relied upon, and stating petitioner’s good cause or cause of

4. MNT was not availed of or is no longer available

Sec. 32, PRD


1. actual or extrinsic fraud, committed outside trial,

preventing the petitioner to present his side;

2. fatal infirmity in the decision for want of due


3. lack of jurisdiction of the court


1. petitioner must have an interest in the land;

2. petitioner must show actual or extrinsic fraud by the

other party that led to the issuance of the decree of

3. petition must be filed within one year from the issuance

of the decree of registration by the LRA

4. the ownership of the property has not been transferred

to an innocent purchaser for value.
Fraud must be actual

there must have been an intentional

concealment or omission of fact required by
law to be stated 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 rights.
Instances of actual or
extrinsic fraud

1. deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested

when in fact they are;

2. applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the

name of a co-owner of a 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 a portion not belonging to him;

4. wilfully representing that there are no other claims;

5. deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice;

6. inducing a claimant not to oppose the application;

7. misrepresentation by the applicant about the identity of

the lot to the true owner causing the latter to withdraw his

8. failure of the applicant to disclose in her application vital


9. deliberate falsehood in the application.

When to file Petition

as long as the final decree has not been

entered by the LRA and the period of 1 year
has not elapsed from the date of entry of
such decree, the title is not finally
adjudicated and the decision in the
registration case continues to be under the
control of the registration court.
In titles acquired through
homestead and free patents, the
date of issuance of patent is
equivalent to the date of the
issuance of the decree of
He who asserts the status of
a purchaser in good faith
and for value has the burden
of proving such assertion. if
the complaint does not allege
that the purchasers are in
bad faith, the purchaser is
presumed to be a purchaser
in good faith and for value.
Rule on “caveat emptor”

one who purchases real property which is in

actual possession of others should, at least,
make some inquiry concerning the rights of
those in possession.

purchaser must be aware of the supposed title

of the vendor and one who buys without
checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks
and losses consequent to such failure.
Petition for review may
not be granted when:

actual fraud or extrinsic fraud was not present

in securing the decree of registration.

there is extrinsic fraud but the petition was filed

after one year from the entry of the decree of
registration, or that the land was acquired by a
purchaser in good faith and for value.
Labanon v. Labanon

While it is true that Section 32 of

PD 1529 provides that the decree
of registration becomes
incontrovertible after a year, it
does not altogether deprive an
aggrieved party of a remedy in
law. The acceptability of the
To r r e n s S y s t e m w o u l d b e
impaired, if it is utilized to
perpetuate fraud against the real
When can this remedy be
availed of?

• When there is a cloud in title to real property or any

interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceedings which is apparently
valid or effective, but is in truth and in fact invalid,
voidable or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or
quiet the title.

• An action may be brought to prevent a cloud from being

cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.
Cloud on Title

An outstanding claim of encumbrance

which, if valid, would affect or impair the
title of the owner of a particular estate;
but it can be shown by extrinsic proof to
be invalid or inapplicable to the estate in
Imprescriptible if plaintiff is in possession

if not in possession, must be brought within 10

years from the loss of possession
1. two different certificates of title over the
same land was issued;

2. certificate covers non-registerable property;

3. certificate is issued before finality of


4. certificate issued to a person who has no

claim or did not apply for registration.
Rule when 2 or more
certificates of title are issued

1. the title earlier in date must prevail, unless

procured by fraud or is jurisdictionally flawed;

2. later title should be declared null and void and

ordered cancelled;

3. in case of non-registered land, must be filed

by the OSG for cancellation of title or reversion
to state.
Voiding or cancellation of
OCT does not affect
derivative TCTs if their
holders are not given an
opportunity to be learned
and defend their title.
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 recover
the land to him.

title is transferred to the rightful owner

without reopening the decree of
Reconveyance is not inconsistent
with the principle that after one
year from the issuance, the deed
of registration is incontrovertible
because it does not seek to reopen
the registration proceedings. It
simply seeks to transfer the
property or its title wrongfully
registered in the name of another
person, to its rightful owner or to
one who has a better right.
• Remedy is no longer available if the
property has passed to an innocent
purchaser for value. The remedy
available will be an action for damages.

• What determines the nature of the

action are the allegations in the
complaint and the character of the
relief sought.

• Every action must be prosecuted or

defended in the name of the real party
in interest.

• action for reconveyance can be availed

of by the person whose property was
wrongly registered under the Torrens
System in the name of another person.
• May be availed of after one (1) year from the
issuance of the decree.

• Can also be availed of even before the issuance

of the decree.

• Reconveyance based on implied or constructive

trust prescribes in 10 years, reckoned from the
date of issuance of the TCT which operates as
constructive notice to the whole world.
• If the person claiming to be the owner of the property is
in actual possession, the action for reconveyance does
not prescribe.

• rationale: his undisturbed possession provides him a

continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to
ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim
of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right
can be claimed only by the one who is in possession.

• reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is

10 years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title.
• reconveyance based on a void
contract: imprescriptible

• reconveyance based on a fictitious

deed: imprescriptible
Nature of the action and

• ordinary action.
• action in personam
• RTC: if the assessed value of the property
exceeds Php 20,000 (outside MM), or Php
50,000 (in MM)

• Below the above amounts: MTC

• it is a restoration of public land fraudulently awarded or
disposed of, to the mass of the public domain and may
again be the subject of disposition to qualified

• OSG may initiate an action for reversion.

• if the purpose of the complaint is to cancel the certificate

of title derived from patent, the action is a reversion suit
because the effect of cancellation is reversion of the land
back to the state and not to any private person.
• objective of reversion is the cancellation of the certificate
of title and the resulting reversion of the land covered by
the title to the State.

• only the OSG may initiate an action for reversion because it

is the State who is the grantor.

• but a private individual may bring an action for

reconveyance even if the title thereof was issued through a
free patent since such action does not aim or purport to re-
open the registration proceeding and set aside the decree
of registration, but only to show that the person who
secured the registration of the question property is not the
real owner thereof.
• remedy when action for reconveyance
is no longer available as when the
land has passed onto the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value.

• may be filed within 10 years from the

date of the issuance of the title.
Sec. 95, PRD

• Requisites for recovery from the Assurance Fund:

1. person is deprived of land or any estate or interest in consequence of

the bringing of the land under the Torrens System or arising after the
original registration of the land;

2. done through fraud, error, omission, mistake or misdeclaration in any

certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in a registration book;

3. without negligence on the part of the person deprived of the land;

4. barred or precluded from bringing action for the recovery of such land
or interest therein.
• if the person was deprived of his land due to the acts or
omission attributable wholly to the court personnel, RD
or other employees of the RD in the performance of their
duty, the action shall be brought against the RD of the
province or city where the land is situated and the
National Treasurer as defendants.

• if the cause of the deprivation of the land is due to the

acts or omissions of a person other than those
mentioned above, then the action shall be brought
against the RD, the National Treasurer and other person
or persons as co-defendants.
How Judgment satisfied

• if there are defendants other than the RD and National Treasurer,

execution shall issue against such defendants other than the RD
and National Treasurer.

• if execution has returned unsatisfied, the officer returning the

same certifies that the amount due cannot be collected from the
land or personal property of such other defendants, only then the
court will order the National Treasurer to pay out of the Assurance

• the moment the government pay, it will be surrogated to the rights

of the plaintiff against any other parties.
• Falsification or perjury for obtaining
registration through fraud.

• Certificate against forum shopping is