Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Land Titles and Deeds CASES DIGEST
Land Titles and Deeds CASES DIGEST
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 3
with the necessities of the case and the right of the people to a balanced and
demands of public interest, extends to all the healthful ecology, promoting their health
vital public needs. The passage of Executive and enhancing the general welfare. In other
Order No. 279 which superseded Executive words, the constitutional guaranty of non-
Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the impairment of obligations of contract is
DENR Secretary to carry into effect the limited by the exercise of the police power of
mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 the State, in the interest of public health,
Constitution safety, moral and general welfare. But
neither property rights nor contract rights are
absolute; for government cannot exist if the
OPOSA VS FACTORAN citizen may at will use his property to the
224 SCRA 792 (1993) detriment of his fellows, or exercise his
freedom of contract to work them harm.
FACTS: The complaint was instituted as a Equally fundamental with the private right is
taxpayers' class suit (minors and parents) that of the public to regulate it in the
and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens common interest.'" In court, the non-
of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, impairment clause must yield to the
and entitled to the full benefit, use and police power of the state
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
that is the country's virgin tropical
rainforests. Consequently, it is prayed for Social Justice
that judgment be rendered ordering
defendant, his agents, representatives and DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. FUNTILAR
other persons acting in his behalf to (1) (142 SCRA 57)
Cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country; (2) Cease and FACTS: In 1972, Mariano Funtilar and the
desist from receiving, accepting, processing, Heirs of Felipe Rosete applied for the
renewing or approving new timber license registration of land in Mulanay, Quezon.
agreements." Such parcel originally belonged to one
Candida Fernandez whose ownership and
HELD: All timber licenses may thus be possession began sometime during her
revoked or rescinded by executive action. It lifetime and extended until she died in 1936.
is not a contract, property or a property right Sometime in 1940, the land was forfeited in
protected by the due process clause of the favor of the Gov’t for failure to pay real
Constitution. It is only a license or privilege, estate taxes but the same was redeemed in
which can be validly withdrawn whenever 1942 by one of the three children of
dictated by public interest or public welfare Candida. The land now in dispute was
as in this case. Since timber licenses are not adjudicated to petitioners-respondents, as
contracts, the non-impairment clause, which heirs of Fernandez. The Director Lands and
reads: "SEC. 10. No law impairing the Dir. of Forest Dev’t filed an opposition
obligation of contracts shall be passed." In alleging that neither applicants nor their
the second place, even if it is to be assumed predecessors-in-interest possessed
that the same are contracts, the instant case sufficient title to the land, not having
does not involve a law or even an executive acquired the same under any of the
issuance declaring the cancellation or recognized Spanish titles under the Royal
modification of existing timber licenses. Decree of Feb. 13, 1894; that neither have
Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot they been in open, continuos, exclusive and
as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting notorious possession and occupation of the
further that a law has actually been passed land for at least 30 years immediately filing
mandating cancellations or modifications, the application; and that the land is a portion
the same cannot still be stigmatized as a of the public domain belonging to the
violation of the non-impairment clause. This Republic.
is because by its very nature and purpose, The trial court rendered a decision
such a law could have only been passed in in favor of the applicants. On appeal, the
the exercise of the police power of the
state for the purpose of advancing the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 4
Intermediate appellate Court affirmed the Dayotao Paran and by actual, physical,
lower court’s decision. Hence, this petition. exclusive and open possession thereof
since time immemorial.. The Dir. of lands
Issue: WON applicants-respondents have filed an opposition, alleging among others,
met the requirements of possession for at that the land is part of the public domain.
least 30 years immediately preceding the The Office of the Provincial Fiscal likewise
filing of their application in 1972 as to entitle opposed the registration, stating that the
them to registration land is within the Central Cordillera Forest
Reserve covered by Proclamation No. 217
Held: Yes. The Court is satisfied from the dated Feb. 16, 1929. The trial court found in
evidence that long before her death in 1936, favor of the applicants. The Court of
Candid Fernandez already possessed the Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by the
disputed property. This possession must be Sol Gen. Hence, this petition.
tacked to the possession of her heirs,
through the administrator and later, to the Issue: WON land is part of the Cordillera
applicants-respondents who are her Forest Reserve and hence not subject to
grandchildren. It would also be absurd registration.
under the circumstances that the
government would order the forfeiture of the Ratio: The applicants are members of the
property if the property were a forestland. Ibaloi tribe whose application for registration
As to petitioner’s allegation that the should be considered as falling under
land was unclassified public forest until Section 48 (c) of CA 141, said subsection
Sept. 15, 1953 when it was declared having been added by RA 3872 on June 18,
alienable and disposable, the Court said that 1964. Under the said section, members of
the Regalian doctrine must be applied cultural minorities may apply for confirmation
together with the constitutional provisions on of their title to lands of public domain,
social justice and land reform and must be whether disposable or not. They may
interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest therefore apply for public lands although
unfairness and injustice. A strict application such are legally forest lands or mineral
of the Heirs of Amunategui vs. Dir. Of lands, so long as such lands are in fact
Forestry (applicant shoulders the burden of suitable for agriculture. However, PD 1073
overcoming the presumption that the land effective January 25, 1977 amended Section
sought to be registered forms part of the 48 (c), making the said provision applicable
public domain) is warranted whenever a part only to alienable and disposable lands of the
of the public domain is in danger of ruthless public domain.
exploitation, fraudulent titling, or other It is important to note that the
questionable practices. But when an application of the Parans was filed in 1970
application appears to enhance the very and the land registration court affirmed their
reasons behind the enactment of act 496, as long-continued possession of the lands in
amended or the land Reg. Act and CA 141 1974, that is, during the time when Section
or the Public Land Act, then their provisions 48 (c) was in legal effect. Private
should not be made to stand in the way of respondents’ imperfect title was perfected or
their on implementation. The attempts of vested by the required period of possession
humble people to have disposable lands prior to the issuance of PD 1073 thus, their
they have been tilling for generations titled in right in respect of the land they had
their names should not only be viewed with possessed for 30 years could not be
understanding but should, as a matter of divested by said PD. The Court stressed its
policy, be encouraged. pronouncement in Dir. of Lands vs. Funtilar
that the Regalian doctrine must be applied
together with constitutional provisions on
REPUBLIC VS. CA (201 SCRA 3) social justice and land reform and must be
interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest
Private respondents, the Parans, unfairness and injustice. The Declarations
are applicants for registration of a parcel of of Real Property submitted by applicants
land in La Trinidad, Benguet which they likewise indicated that the land had become
claim to have acquired from their father suitable to agriculture. Clearly, the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 6
more than forty years prior to the land was so given. Neither was it denied
commencement of the present action. No that it was agricultural land. No pretension
question is raised nor discussed by the is made that the land might not be registered
appellant with reference to the right of the under the Torrens system had the petitioners
Moros to acquire absolute ownership and invoked the benefits of the public land law.
dominion of the land which they have No contention is made on the part of
occupied openly, notoriously, peacefully and petitioners that they were ever given a title
adversely for a long period of years. to the land. Their contention is simply that
Whether the particular land is they were given the land; that they accepted
agricultural, forestry or mineral is a question the same; that they lived upon the land, and
cultivated it, and improved it, and occupied it
to be settled in each particular case. The to the exclusion of all others for a period of
mere fact that land is a manglar (mangrove about 39 years and that therefore they are
swamp) is not sufficient in itself to show that entitled to have the same registered under
it is agricultural, forestry or mineral. It may the Torrens system; that they have occupied
belong to one or the other class. and cultivated the same for a period
Considering that it is a matter of public sufficient to give them title and to have the
knowledge that a majority of the public lands same registered. This is like the case of
in the Phils. are agricultural lands, the courts Carino vs. Insular Government.
have a right to presume, in the absence of In the Royal Cedula of October 15,
evidence to the contrary, that in each case 1754: ‘Where such possessors shall not be
the lands are agricultural lands. able to produce title deeds, it shall be
sufficient if they shall show that ancient
ABAOAG VS. DIR. OF LANDS possession as a valid title by prescription.’
(45 PHIL. 518) To this, the Court added that every
presumption of ownership under the public
FACTS: Petitioners are among those land laws is in favor of the one actually
Igorots who, in 1884, were given by the occupying the land for many years, and
gobernadorcillo and principalia of Sison, against the Government which seeks to
Pangasinan, a tract of land in order that they deprive him of it.
may cultivate the same and increase the
population of the said municipality. At the MANARPAAC VS. CABANATAN
time of delivery, said land was unoccupied (21 SCRA 743)
and unimproved public land. Said ‘Bagos’ or
Igorots entered upon said land, took FACTS: Plaintiffs filed complaint against
possession of it and have continued to live defendants, alleging that they have been,
upon the same and have cultivated it since since time immemorial, in possession of two
that date. In 1919, petitioner, et al. parcels of land, which were fraudulently
presented a petition for registration with the included in the free patent application of
CFI of Pangasinan. Oppositors filed a defendant. Cabanatan filed a motion to
motion to dismiss upon the ground that dismiss. Such was granted by the lower
petitioners had not presented proof sufficient court holding that the free patent having
to show that they are entitled to the been issued on November 3, 1959 and the
registration of the land. Said motion was first complaint was filed on December 7,
granted. Hence, this appeal. 1960, the action for review of the decree,
was therefore filed more than one year after
Issue: WON dismissal of the case was the issuance of the patent. Hence, this
proper. appeal.
Held: No. No suggestion is made that the Issue: WON dismissal was proper
gobernadorcillo and the principalia of the
town of Alava, now Sision, were not Held: No. From the averment of facts in
authorized in 1884, as representatives of the the complaint, it clearly appears that
then existing Gov’t, to give and to deliver the plaintiffs have been, since time immemorial
land in question to the petitioners and their in possession as owners of the disputed
ancestors for the purposes for which the land, have declared the land for tax
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 7
purposes in the names of two of them and enactment of the Phil. Act of 1902. Reavis,
have built their houses on the land, but that an American, applied for a mining patent
through fraud and irregularity, defendant over the same land during the effectivity of
succeeded in securing a certificate of title. this law.
The foregoing recital of facts are sufficient
averment of ownership. Possession since Reavis argued that first, ownership of the
time immemorial, carries the presumption land surface does not automatically vest
that the land had never been part of the ownership over the mining rights. Second,
public domain, or that it had been a private mines can only be acquired in accordance
property even before the Spanish conquest. with government-prescribed regulations.
Whether this presumption should hold as a Therefore, Fianza had no legal rights to the
fact or not, is a question appropriately mines since there was no compliance with
determinable only after the parties have the procedural requirements laid down in the
adduced, or at least, are given the Phil. Act. of 1902. Furthermore, Fianza held
opportunity to adduce, their respective no patent.
evidence. The Supreme Court did not deal
The complaint likewise states a squarely with the first argument. However,
sufficient cause for action for recovery of the issue was somewhat more resolved in
possession of the land. Settled is the rule its disposition of the second argument. It
that the remedy of the landowner whose was held that Fianza and his ancestors
property has been wrongfully or erroneously have, through their possession of more than
registered in another’s name is, after one 10 years under Spanish Law and their
year from the date of the decree, not to set working of the mining claims within such
aside the decree, but respecting the decree period, acquired ownership rights over the
as incontrovertible and no longer open to questioned land and the mining claims. This
review, to bring an ordinary action in the is notwithstanding the fact that no patent
ordinary court of justice for conveyance or, if was held or applied for by Fianza under the
the property has passed into the hands of provisions of the Phil. Act of 1902 since the
innocent purchaser for value, for damages. right to have a patent that will confer title is
also a right to have the thing.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 10
corporation may institute confirmation apply for the benefits of the Public Land Act
proceedings under Sec. 48(b) of the Public (C.A. 141)
Land Act if, at the time of institution of the The applicant failed to show that he
registration proceedings, the land was has title that may be confirmed under the
already private land. On the other hand, if LRA. All lands that were not acquired from
the land was still part of the public domain, the Government, either by purchase or by
then a private corporation cannot institute grant, belong to the public domain. An
such proceedings. exception to the rule would be time
The correct rule is that alienable immemorial possession, which would justify
public land held by a possessor, personally the presumption that the land had never
or through his predecessors-in-interest, been public land. The applicant does not
openly, continuously and exclusively for the come under the exception, for the earliest
prescribed statutory period (30 years under possession of the lot by his first predecessor
the Public Land Act, as amended) is in interest began in 1880.
converted to private property by the mere As the applicant failed to show title
lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure. to the lot, the next question is whether he is
entitled to a decree of registration thereof
REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS & under the provisions of the Public Land Act
PARAN (C.A. 141). Under the provisions of the Act
(AUGUST 21, 1991) invoked by the applicant, he is not entitled to
a decree of registration of the lot because he
There is no question that a positive is an alien.
act (e.g., an official proclamation) of the The benefits provided in the Public
Executive Department of the Government is Land constitute a grant or concession by the
needed to declassify land which had been State. Before they could acquire any right,
classified as forestal and to convert it into the applicant’s immediate predecessor in
alienable or disposable lands for agricultural interest should comply with the condition
or other purposes. In the case of Director of precedent, which is to apply for the
Lands vs. Funtilar, the Court considered the registration of the land of which they had
reports of the District Forester and the been in possession at least since July 26,
District Land Officer as adequate proof that 1894. This is the applicant’s immediate
the land applied for was no longer classified predecessors in interest failed to do. They
as forestal. did not have any vested right in the lot
We consider and so hold that once amounting to title which was transmissible to
a parcel of land Is shown to have been the applicant. The only right is their
included within a Forest Reservation duly possession of the lot which, tacked to that of
established by Executive Proclamation, as in their predecessors in interest, may be
the instant case, a presumption arises that availed of by a qualified person but not by
the parcel of land continues to be part of the applicant, since he is disqualified.
such Reservation until clear and convincing
evidence of subsequent withdrawal Indigenous Peoples' Rights
therefrom or declassification is shown. A
simple, unsworn statement of a minor PD 705
functionary of the Bureau of a minor Forestry Reform Code
functionary of the Bureau of Forest
Development is not, by itself, such evidence. SECTION 52. Census of kaingineros,
squatters, cultural minorities and
other occupants and residents in
OH CHO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS forest lands. — Henceforth, no person
75 PHIL 890 (1946) shall enter into forest lands and
cultivate the same without lease or
The applicant invokes the Land permit.
Registration Act (Act. No. 496) or should it
not be applicable to the case, then he would A complete census of kaingineros,
squatters, cultural minorities and
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 12
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 13
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 14
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 15
the boundary lines of the Autonomous the central monetary authority of the
Region touch the sea at low tide and a National Government.
third line parallel to the general
coastline. SECTION 23. Subject to national
policies, the Regional Government
Further, it shall provide support to shall regulate traditional barter trade
subsistence fishermen through and countertrade with neighboring
appropriate technology and research, countries.
adequate financial, production and
marketing assistance and other SECTION 24. The Regional
services. Government shall encourage,
promote, undertake and support the
Fishworkers shall also receive a just establishment of economic zones,
share from their labor in the industrial centers and ports in
utilization of marine and fishing strategic areas and growth centers of
resources. the Region to attract local and foreign
investments and business enterprises.
Science, technology and other
disciplines shall be developed and SECTION 25. The Regional
employed to protect and maintain Government shall undertake measures
aquatic and marine ecology. to promote consumer education and to
ensure that the rights, interests and
SECTION 19. The Regional Assembly welfare of the consumers are
may, by law, create a Bureau of protected.
Agriculture and Fisheries and define
its composition, powers and functions. SECTION 26. The Regional
Government shall promote the
Trade and Industry preferential use of labor and locally
produced goods and materials by
SECTION 20. The Regional adopting measures to increase their
Government recognizes the private competitiveness.
sector as the prime mover of trade,
commerce and industry. It shall SECTION 27. Subject to the
encourage and support Constitution and national policies, the
entrepreneurial capability in the Regional Government shall regulate
Region and shall recognize, promote and exercise authority over foreign
and protect cooperatives. investments within its jurisdiction in
accordance with its goals and
SECTION 21. The Regional priorities.
Government shall promote and protect
small and medium-scale cottage Tourism Development
industries by providing assistance
such as marketing opportunities, SECTION 28. The Regional
financial support, tax incentives, Government shall, with the assistance
appropriate and alternative of the National Government and the
technology and technical training to participation of the private sector,
produce semi-finished and finished develop tourism as a positive
products. instrument toward accelerated
regional development. Tourism
SECTION 22. The Regional development shall promote greater
Government shall give support and pride in and commitment to the
encouragement to the establishment nation: Provided, That the diverse
of banks in accordance with the cultural heritage, and moral and
principles of the Islamic banking spiritual values of the people in the
system, subject to the supervision by
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 16
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 17
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 18
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 19
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 20
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 21
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 22
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 23
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 24
descriptive of its legal nature or status and become vested in a purchaser of public
does not have to be descriptive of what the lands, it is equivalent to a patent actually
land actually looks like. Unless and until the issued. From that point the land ceases to
land classified as "forest" is released in an be part of the public domain and becomes
official proclamation to that effect so that it private. The Director of Lands is divested of
may form part of the disposable agricultural control and possession when homestead
lands of the public domain, the rules on applications are approved and recorded.
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
Possession of forest lands, no matter
how long, cannot ripen into private Forest Lands
ownership. A positive act of Government is
needed to declassify land which is classified May 19, 1975
as forest and to convert it into alienable or PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705
disposable land for agricultural or other FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE
purposes. PHILIPPINES
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 25
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 26
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 27
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 28
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 29
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 30
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 31
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 32
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 33
The main purpose of the Torrens acquired the property in due course and in
system is to avoid possible conflicts of title good faith under a clean title i.e. there were
to real estate and to facilitate transactions no annotations of encumbrances or notices
relative thereto by giving the public the right of lis pendens at the back. They had no
to rely upon the face of the TCT and reason to doubt the validity of the title to the
dispense with the need for inquiring further property. It would be the height of injustice if
except when the party concerned has actual a valid transaction transferring property to
knowledge of facts and circumstances that them would be set aside just to
should impel a reasonably cautious man to accommodate parties who heedlessly slept
make such further inquiry. on their rights for more then a third of a
The action had already prescribed century- having brought action to recover
because it was filed 15 years after the sale the land only after 36 years from the accrual
and issuance of TCT in 1967. The remedy of their cause of action.
for the petitioner is to bring action for
damages against those who caused the
fraud. HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ V. CA
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 34
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 35
application for registration or have appeared may have in regard to the preparation and
and filed an answer to said application issuance of a decree of registration. As the
because all persons are considered as issuance of the decree is a judicial act and
notified by publication required by law. not merely ministerial, it may not be
Further more, a decree of registration that compelled through mandamus. Given the
has become final shall be deemed above, that LRA hesitates to issue a decree
conclusive not only on the questions actually of registration is understandable. (But to
contested and determined but also upon all avoid multiplicity of suits, SC ordered LRA to
matters that might be litigated or decided in submit its report to the TC within 60 days)
the land registration proceedings with the
certification duly issued by the then Land
Registration Commission (now National B. The Land Registration
Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration
Administration) there is no doubt that
decrees of registration have in fact been PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529
issued in the case at the bench. Also, such AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE
decrees attained finality upon the lapse of LAWS RELATIVE TO
one year from entry thereof. To allow the REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY
final decrees to once again be subject to the
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
conditions set forth in Cacho v. US would be
tantamount to setting aside the decrees
SECTION 9. Qualifications of
which cannot be reopened after the lapse of
Registers of Deeds and Deputy
one year from the entry thereof. Such action
Registers of Deeds. — No person
would definitely run counter to the very
shall be appointed Register of Deeds
purpose of the Torrens System.
unless he has been admitted to the
practice of law in the Philippines and
shall have been actually engaged in
SPOUSES LEBURADA V. LRA
such practice for at least three years
287 SCRA 333 (1998)
or has been employed for a like period
in any branch of government the
FACTS: TC ordered LRA to issue a degree functions of which include the
of registration in favor of the spouses registration of property.
Leburada. LRA refused on the grounds that
its immediate issuance would result in the The Deputy Register of Deeds
duplication of titles over the same parcel of shall be a member of the Philippine
land. LRA found that the title issued for the Bar. Provided, however, that no
lot could not be found because the TCT
Register of Deeds or Deputy Register
covering them was incomplete/ unreadable.
of Deeds holding office as such upon
It was waiting for better copies from the
the passage of this Decree shall by
Pasig register of deeds before proceeding
reason hereof, be removed from office
further.
or be demoted to a lower category or
scale of salary except for cause and
ISSUE: WON LRA can be compelled by
upon compliance with due process as
mandamus to issue the decree.
provided for by law.
RULING: NO. A judgment of registration
does not become executory until after the SECTION 10. General functions of
expiration of one year after the entry of the Registers of Deeds. — The office of
final decree of registration. True, land the Register of Deeds constitutes a
registration is an in rem proceeding and is public repository of records of
binding upon and conclusive against all instruments affecting registered or
persons including the government, however unregistered lands and chattel
a court has no jurisdiction to order the mortgages in the province or city
registration of a land already decreed in an wherein such office is situated.
earlier land registration case. The LRA is
mandated to refer to the TC any doubt it
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 36
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 37
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 38
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 39
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its "original registration" but also "over all
limited jurisdiction as a special court petitions filed after original registration of
(Probate, Land Registration, etc.) is in title, with power to hear and determine all
reality not a jurisdictional question. It is in questions arising upon such applications or
essence a procedural question involving a petitions."
mode of practice which may be waived." Under the amended law, the court is
now authorized to hear and decide not only
OBITER: The proceedings for the such non-controversial cases but even the
registration of title to land under the Torrens contentious and substantial issues, such as
system is an action in rem, not in personam, the question at bar, which were beyond its
hence, personal notice to all claimants of the competence before.
res is not necessary to give the court
jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the
res, and neither may lack of such personal HEIRS OF GONZAGA vs. CA
notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title
issued in a registration proceeding, for the FACTS: Eugenio, claiming title under (TCT)
State, as sovereign over the land situated No. 17519, sold two lots to Gonzaga.for
within it, may provide for the adjudication of which TCT No. 81338 was issued on
title in a proceeding in rem or in the nature November 29, 1960. In 1981, Gonzaga sold
of a proceeding in rem, which shall be the two lots to petitioner Mascariñas and
binding upon all persons, known or TCT No. 48078 was issued in the latter’s
unknown. favor.
However, another subsisting Torrens
title covers the same two lots, TCT No. C-
AVERIA JR. VS. CAGUIOA 26086, in the name of private respondent
146 SCRA 459 (1986) Sevilla issued on August 2, 1979 and is a
transfer from (OCT) No. 994 which was
FACTS: The petitioner-oppositor refused to registered on April 19, 1917. Both conflicting
participate in the hearing of the registration TCTs were derived from one common OCT,
proceedings below, claiming the respondent viz., OCT No. 994. However, while both the
court, acting as a cadastral court, had no court a quo and the respondent appellate
competence to act upon the said case under court found that OCT No. 994 was
Section 112 of Act 496, because of the registered on May 3, 1917, we find that on
absence of unanimity among the parties as the one hand, petitioners' titles indicate
required under Section 112 of the Land original registration to have been made on
Registration Act. The respondent court then May 3, 1917, but on the other hand, private
held the hearing ex parte and later rendered respondents' title indicates original
a decision ordering the registration prayed registration to have been made on April 19,
for on the basis of the evidence presented 1917.
by the private respondent herein. The court a quo resolved the
conflicting claims in favor of private
ISSUE: whether or not the court has respondents.
jurisdiction to order the registration of a deed
of sale which is opposed on the ground of ISSUE: Between petitioners and private
an antecedent contract to sell. respondents, who have the legal and valid
title to the two lots. (OVERLAPPING
HELD: Yes. Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529 has TITLES)
eliminated the distinction between the
general jurisdiction vested in the regional HELD: Private respondents. Although
trial court and the limited jurisdiction petitioner's title was issued in 1940, it will be
conferred upon it by the former law when noted that petitioner's title over Lots 2693
acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at and 2695 both with an area of 599 square
avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has meters was based on the Cadastral Survey
simplified registration proceedings by of Kaloocan City, Cadastral Case No. 34,
conferring upon the regional trial courts the while private respondents' title was derived
authority to act not only on applications for from OCT No. 994 issued on April 19, 1917.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 40
In the case of Pamintuan vs. San Agustin, over the lots in its name. Said petition was
this Court ruled that where two certificates opposed by herein petitioner, alleging that
(of title) purport to include the same land, the tax delinquency sale was null and void
the earlier in date prevails. . . . In successive for lack of valid and proper notice to
registrations, where more than one petitioner.
certificate is issued in respect of a particular On December 5, 1989, the trial court
estate or interest in land, the person dismissed on the ground of laches. CA
claiming under the prior certificate is entitled affirms.
to the estate or interest; and the person is On July 19, 1991, petitioner filed
deemed to hold under the prior certificate with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite,
who is the holder of, or whose claim is sitting as a regular court, a petition assailing
derived directly or indirectly from the person the authority of respondent City to levy real
who was the holder of the earliest certificate estate tax on the ground that said properties
issued in respect thereof. Hence, in point of are located in the Province of Batangas.
priority of issuance, private respondents' title RTC rules in favor of petioner. No appeal
prevails over that of petitioner MWSS. was filed.
Lastly, a certificate is not conclusive
evidence of title if it is shown that the same ISSUES (a) whether or not the Regional
land had already been registered and an Trial Court of Cavite, sitting as a land
earlier certificate for the same is in registration or cadastral court, had
existence. Since the land in question has jurisdiction to hear and decide respondent
already been registered under OCT No. 994 City's petition for the cancellation of TCT No.
dated April 19, 1917, the subsequent T-9816 and TCT No. T-9817 in the name of
registration of the same land on May 3, 1917 petitioner and the issuance of new ones in
is null and void." the name of respondent City despite serious
Though petitioner Mascariñas may opposition by petitioner
be a purchaser for value and in good faith,
but whose title, which is only a derivative of HELD: negative.
the void OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917,
his title could not possibly be of force and RULING: Here, petitioner had the right to
effect more than its parent title. avail of its legal and equitable remedies to
nullify the delinquency sale because, firstly,
there was lack of notice to it; secondly, the
TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST properties in question became subject of
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. serious controversy before RTC -Cavite and
COURT OF APPEALS (273 SCRA 182; the SEC; and thirdly, respondent City had no
1997) authority to impose realty tax on petitioner
as the properties are actually located in
FACTS: Petitioner was the registered owner Talisay, Batangas.
of four (4) parcels of land covered by TCT Given such facts, The issues raised
Nos. T-9816, T-9817, T-9818 and T-9819. before the RTC sitting as a land registration
The properties were mortgaged on June 7, or cadastral court, without question,
1976 to Filipinas Manufacturers Bank and involved substantial or controversial matters
Trust Company by Benjamin Osias, and, consequently, beyond said court's
representing himself as President and jurisdiction. The issues may be resolved
Chairman of the Board of petitioner. only by a court of general jurisdiction.
Because of a dispute regarding the It is clear that petitions under
true set of officers of the petitioner, the Section 75 and Section 108 of P.D. 1529
parcels of land allegedly became delinquent (formerly Sec. 78 and Sec. 112 of Act 496)
in the payment of real estate taxes resulting can be taken cognizance of by the RTC
in the sale of the said properties in a public sitting as a land registration or cadastral
auction. Respondent City itself was the court. Relief under said sections can only be
successful bidder. granted if there is unanimity among the
parties, or that there is no adverse claim or
On July 14, 1989, respondent City serious objection on the part of any party in
filed for the entry of new certificates of title interest; otherwise, the case becomes
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 41
controversial and should be threshed out in title creates what is called "constructive
an ordinary case or in the case where the trust" in favor of the defrauded party and
incident properly belongs. grants to the latter a right to the
Also, RTC-Cavite, sitting as a land reconveyance of the property.
registration or cadastral court, could not As the petition makes out a case for
have ordered the issuance of new reconveyance and not a mere annulment of
certificates of title over the properties in the an RTC judgment as viewed under par. (2),
name of respondent City if the delinquency Sec. 9, BP Blg. 129, jurisdiction over the
sale was invalid because said properties are case is clearly vested in the Regional Trial
actually located in the municipality of Talisay, Court of Quezon City as provided in par. (2),
Batangas, not in Tagaytay City. Sec. 19, BP Blg. 129.
Moreover, the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction over the petition as it may be
ESTATE OF JACOB V. CA considered only as a continuation of the
(283 SCRA 474; 1998) original proceeding for cancellation of title
which in view of its non-litigious character is
FACTS: Jacob left for the United States, but summary in nature. Furthermore, under Sec.
before she did, she asked her son-in-law 2 of PD 1529, a Regional Trial Court, like the
Quinto Jr., to pay the real estate taxes on RTC of Quezon City which issued a new title
her property. However, Luciano Jr. was not to respondent Virginia Tugbang in lieu of the
allowed to pay by the City Treasurer's Office old one, has the authority to act not only on
as he had no written authorization from her. applications for original registration but also
In 1984 respondent City Treasurer of over all petitions filed after original
Quezon City sent a notice to Mercedes registration of title, with power to hear and
Jacob that her real estate taxes on the determine all questions arising from such
property were delinquent and that the land applications or petitions.
was already sold at public auction on 24 As to whether such an action should
August 1983 to private respondent Virginia be granted requires further evidence culled
Tugbang for P6,800.00. Jacob came to from a full-blown trial.
know of the sale on 6 September 1983 when
she received from respondent City Treasurer G.R. No. 120974 (substantially the same
a Notice of Sale of Real Property addressed facts)
to her husband. They tried to redeem the
property from Tugbang but she evaded them Under Sec. 55 of the Land
until the Final Bill of Sale was issued. On 3 Registration Act, as amended by Sec. 53 of
March 1989 TCT No. 81860 was issued in PD No. 1529, an original owner of
the name of Tugbang. registered land may seek the annulment of
On 17 May 1993 petitioners filed a the transfer thereof on the ground of fraud
complaint for annulment or cancellation of and the proper remedy is reconveyance.
the auction sale, the final bill of sale, TCT However, such remedy is without prejudice
No. 81860, and for redemption of the to the rights of an innocent purchaser for
property plus damages. However, the trial value holding a certificate of title.
court dismissed the petition purportedly for
lack of jurisdiction as the petition was
deemed to be a petition to annul and set The other controversy lies in the
aside the Decision canceling Jacob's TCT failure of petitioner City Treasurer to notify
No. 39178. The appellate court dismissed effectively the delinquent taxpayer
the appeal. (Valencia), under the wrong premise that the
property was still owned by the former
ISSUE: the nature of the petitioners’ action registered owner, Alberto Sta. Maria.
In ascertaining the identity of the
HELD: It is an action for reconveyance. The delinquent taxpayer, for purposes of
complaint alleges that respondent Tugbang notifying him of his tax delinquency and the
procured a transfer certificate of title upon prospect of a distraint and auction of his
her fraudulent representation in her petition delinquent property, petitioner City Treasurer
for cancellation of title. This way of acquiring
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 42
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 43
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of their claims and the issuance of a
private lands or abandoned river beds by right of certificate of title therefor, under the
accession or accretion under the existing laws. Land Registration Act , to wit:
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of (a) Those who prior to the transfer of
land in any other manner provided for by law. sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States
have applied for the purchase, composition or
Where the land is owned in common: all the co- other form of grant of lands of the public domain
owners shall file the application jointly. under the laws and royal decrees then in force
and have instituted and prosecuted the
Where the land has been sold under pacto de proceedings in connection therewith, but have
retro: the vendor a retro may file an application with or without default upon their part, or for any
for the original registration of the land, provided, other cause, not received title therefor, if such
however, that should the period for redemption applicants or grantees and their heirs have
expire during the pendency of the registration occupied and cultivated said lands continuously
proceedings and ownership to the property since the filing of their applications.
consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall
be substituted for the applicant and may continue (b) Those who by themselves or through
the proceedings. their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
original registration of any land held in trust by domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or
him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
the trust. preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title except when prevented by
Sec. 16. Non-resident war or force majeure. These shall be
applicant. - If the applicant is not a conclusively presumed to have performed all the
resident of the Philippines, he shall conditions essential to a Government grant and
file with his application an instrument shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
in due form appointing an agent or provisions of this chapter.
representative residing in the
Philippines, giving his full name and (c) Members of the national cultural
postal address, and shall therein agree minorities who by themselves or through their
that the service of any legal process in predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
the proceedings under or growing out continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
of the application made upon his and occupation of lands of the public domain
agent or representative shall be of the suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not,
same legal effect as if made upon the under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least
applicant within the Philippines. If the 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in
agent or representative dies, or leaves sub-section (b) hereof.
the Philippines, the applicant shall
forthwith make another appointment
for the substitute, and, if he fails to do DAIS V. CFI
so the court may dismiss the 51 PHIL. 396 (1928)
application.
The rights to the succession of a
CA 141, Sec. 48. The following- person are transmitted from the moment of
described citizens of the Philippines, his death; in other words, the heirs
occupying lands of the public domain immediately succeed to the dominion,
or claiming to own any such lands or ownership and possession of the property of
an interest therein, but whose titles their predecessor. The fact that the law
have not been perfected or completed, provides for the appointment of a legal
may apply to the Court of First administrator for the liquidation of the
Instance of the province where the deceased's property, and the partition
land is located for confirmation of among his heirs, does not deprive the heirs
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 44
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 45
Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions Sec. 22 has been amended by Art. XII,
of Section 7 of this Article, a natural- Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution
born citizen of the Philippines who has
lost its Philippine citizenship may be a SEC. 23. No person, corporation,
transferee of private lands, subject to association, or partnership other than
limitations provided by law. those mentioned in the last preceding
section may acquire or own
agricultural public land or land of any
CA 141 other denomination or classification,
which is at the time or was originally,
SEC. 12. Any citizen of the really or presumptively, of the public
Philippines over the age of eighteen domain, or any permanent
years, or the head of a family, who improvement thereon, or any real
does not own more than twenty-four right on such land and improvement:
hectares of land in the Philippines or Provided, however, That persons,
has not had the benefit of any corporations, associations or
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 46
partnerships which, at the date upon is not the owner of any real property
which the Philippine Constitution took secured or disposable under this
effect, held agricultural public lands provision of the Public Land Law
or land of any other denomination,
that belonged originally, really or Sec. 48, supra.
presumptively, to the public domain,
or permanent improvements on such
lands, or a real right upon such lands REPUBLIC v. CA
and Constitution took improvements, 235 SCRA 567
having acquired the same under the
laws and regulations in force at the A former Filipino citizen who, while
date of such acquisition, shall be still a citizen, purchased a piece of land from
authorized to continue holding the a vendor who has complied with the
same requirements of registration under the Public
Land Act, may apply for registration of title
as if such persons, corporations, for that piece of land, in accordance with Art.
associations, or partnerships were XII, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.
qualified under the last preceding The time to determine whether the
section; but they shall not encumber, person acquiring land is qualified, is the time
convey, or alienate the same to the right to own it is acquired and not the
persons, corporations, associations, or time to register ownership.
partnerships not included in section
twenty-two of this Act, except by KRIVENKO V. REGISTER OF DEEDS
reason of hereditary succession, duly 79 PHIL 461 (1947)
legalized and acknowledged by
competent courts. There is absolutely no difference in
nature, character, value or importance to the
SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen nation between a residential land of the
of the Philippines who is not the public domain and a residential land of
owner of more than twenty-four private ownership, and, therefore, both
hectares and who since July fourth, should equally be considered as agricultural
nineteen hundred and twenty-six or lands to be protected as part of the national
prior thereto, has continuously patrimony. Specially is this so where the
occupied and cultivated, either by prohibition as to the alienation of public
himself or through his predecessors- residential lots may become superfluous if
in-interest, a tract or tracts of the same prohibition is not equally applied to
agricultural public lands subject to private residential lots. Indeed, the
disposition, or who shall have paid the prohibition as to private residential lands will
real estate tax thereon while same has eventually become more important, for time
not been occupied by any person shall will come when, in view of the constant
be entitled, under the provisions of disposition of public lands in favor private
this chapter, to have a free patent individuals, almost all, if not all, the
issued to him for such tract or tracts residential lands of the public domain shall
of such land not to exceed twenty-four have become private residential lands.
hectares. If the term "private agricultural lands" is
A member of the national cultural to be construed as not including residential
minorities who has continuously lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the
occupied and cultivated, either by result would be that aliens may freely
himself or through his predecessors- acquire and possess not only residential lots
in-interest, a tract or tracts of land, and houses for themselves but entire
whether disposable or not since July 4, subdivisions, and whole towns and cities,
1955, shall be entitled to the right and that they may validly buy and hold in
granted in the preceding paragraph of their names lands of any area for building
this section: Provided, That at the time homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries,
he files his free patent application he hatcheries, schools, health and vacation
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 47
resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, just fruendi and jus abutendi) but also of the
airfields, and a host of other uses and right to dispose of it (jus disponendi) —
purposes that are not, in appellant's words, rights the sum total of which make up
strictly agricultural. That this is obnoxious to ownership. If this can be done, then the
the conservative spirit of the Constitution is Constitutional ban against alien landholding
beyond question. in the Philippines, as announced in Krivenko
vs. Register of Deeds, is indeed in grave
peril. The contract giving the above rights to
SAN JUAN V. INTESTATE ESTATE OF the alien is therefore void.
SPOUSES SOCCHI, GR L-19467 (1966)
RAMIREZ V. VDA. DE RAMIREZ
An alien who validly owns agricultural land in 111 SCRA 704
the Philippines, which land is sold at public
auction for tax delinquency, may avail of the The usufruct in favor of an alien is
right to repurchase the same within one year upheld, because the same, albeit a real
pursuant to Section 38 of the Assessment right, does not vest title to land in the
Law. Such right is but an incident of the right usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to
of ownership and its exercise by the owner, land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by
who happens to be an alien, does not fall the Constitution.
within the purview of the terms "shall be
transferred or assigned" used in Section 5,
Article XIII of the Constitution, or of the CHEESMAN V. IAC
terms "encumbered, alienated or 193 SCRA 93
transferred" used in the implementing
provision of Section 122, Commonwealth The fundamental law prohibits the
Act No. 141, otherwise known as Public sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14,
Land Act. Moreover, the sale at public Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains
auction by reason of tax delinquency under that, "Save in cases of hereditary
the Assessment Law does not immediately succession, no private land shall be
divest the rights of the owner to the property transferred or conveyed except to
sold. Indeed it is provided in section 39 of individuals, corporations, or associations
said law that after the sale and before qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
repurchase or before the expiration of the public domain."
term of one year fixed for such repurchase,
the real property shall remain in the Petitioner Thomas Cheesman was charged
possession of the delinquent taxpayer who with knowledge of this prohibition. Thus,
shall have the right to the usufruct thereof. It assuming that it was his intention that the lot
is only after failure to redeem within that in question be purchased by him and his
period and after the final bill of sale is issued wife, he acquired no right whatever over the
to the purchaser by the Provincial Treasurer property by virtue of that purchase; and in
that the rights of the owner are definitely attempting to acquire a right or interest in
divested. land, vicariously and clandestinely, he
knowingly violated the Constitution; the sale
PHIL. BANKING V. LUI SHE as to him was null and void. In any event, he
21 SCRA 52 (1967) had and has no capacity or personality to
question the subsequent sale of the same
If an alien is given not only a lease property by his wife on the theory that in so
of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land doing he is merely exercising the
by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot prerogative of a husband in respect of
sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this conjugal property. To sustain such a theory
to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear would permit indirect controversion of the
that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of constitutional prohibition. If the property
ownership whereby the owner divests were to be declared conjugal, this would
himself in stages not only of the right to accord to the alien husband a not
enjoy the land (jus possidendi jus utendi, insubstantial interest and right over land, as
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 48
he would then have a decisive vote as to its only to administer the temporalities of the
transfer or disposition. This is a right that the church or religious society where he
Constitution does not permit him to have. belongs, but also to hold and transmit the
same to his successor in said office.
Although a branch of the Universal Roman
RELLOSA V. GAW CHEE HUN Catholic Apostolic Church, every Roman
93 PHIL. 827 Catholic Church in different countries, if it
exercises its mission and is lawfully
Sale to alien by Filipino vendor incorporated in accordance with laws of the
during Japanese occupation null and void, country where it is located, is considered an
for being contrary to the Constitution. But entity or person with all the rights and
vendor can no longer recover the land, privileges granted to such artificial being
because of doctrine of pari delicto. (Note under laws of that country, separate and
distinct from the personality of the Roman
however that the pari delicto doctrine was
Pontiff or the Holy See, without prejudice to
subsequently abandoned in the case of Phil. its religious relations with the latter which
Banking v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52.) are governed by the Common Law or their
rules and regulations.
Even before the establishment of
Corporations the Philippine Commonwealth and of the
Republic of the Philippines every corporation
REGISTER OF DEEDS V. UNG SUI SI sole then organized and registered had by
TEMPLE, 97 PHIL. 58 (1955) express provision of law (Corporation Law,
Public Act. 1459) the necessary power and
A deed of donation of a parcel of qualification to purchase in its name private
land executed by a Filipino citizen in favor of lands located in the territory in which it
a religious organization whose founder, exercised its functions or ministry and for
trustees and administrator are non-Filipinos, which it was created, independently of the
can not be admitted for registration. nationality of its incumbent unique and
single number and head, the bishop of the
Land tenure is not indispensable to diocese. The Roman Catholic Apostolic
the free exercise of religious Church in the Philippines has no nationality
profession and worship. and that the frames of the Constitution did
not have in mind the religious corporation
sole when they provided that 60 per centum
of the capital thereof be owned by Filipino
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF citizens. Thus, if this constitutional provision
DAVAO V. LRC, 102 PHIL. 596 (1957) were not intended for corporation sole, it is
obvious that this could not be regulated or
A corporation sole is a special form restricted by said provision.
of corporation usually associated with clergy, A corporation sole or "ordinary" is
designed to facilitate the exercise of the not the owner of the properties that he may
functions of ownership of the church which acquire but merely the administrator thereof
was regarded as the property owner. It and holds the same in trust for the church to
consists of one person only, and his which the corporation is an organized and
successors (who will always be one at a constituents part. Being mere administrator
time), in some particular, who are of the temporalities or properties titled in his
incorporated by law in order to give them name, the constitutional provision requiring
some legal advantages particularly that of 60 per centum Filipino ownership is not
perpetuity which in their natural persons applicable. The said constitutional provision
they could not have. Through this legal is limited by it terms to ownership alone and
fiction, church properties acquired by the does not extend to control unless the control
incumbent of a corporation sole pass, by over the property affected has been devised
operation of law, upon his death not to his to circumvent the real purpose of the
personal heirs but to his successor in office. constitution. In determining, therefore,
A corporation sole, therefore, is created not whether the constitutional provision requiring
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 49
60 per centum Filipino capital is applicable defeat a right already vested before that law
to corporations sole, the nationality of the came into effect, or invalidate transactions
constituents of the diocese, and not the then perfectly valid and proper, This Court
nationality of the actual incumbent of the has already held, in analogous
parish, must be taken into consideration. In circumstances, that the Constitution cannot
the present case, even if the question of impair vested rights.
nationality be considered, the aforesaid
constitutional requirement is fully met and
satisfied, considering that the corporation B. Where to File
sole in question is composed of an
overwhelming majority of Filipinos.
PD 1529
REGISTER OF DEEDS V. CHINA
BANKING CORPORATION, 4 SCRA 1146 Sec. 2. Nature of registration
(1964) proceedings; jurisdiction of
courts. - Judicial proceedings for the
The prohibition in the Constitution registration of lands throughout the
against the acquisition of lands by aliens is Philippines shall be in rem and shall
absolute in its terms. It cannot be limited to be based on the generally accepted
the permanent acquisition of real estate by principles underlying the Torrens
aliens, whether natural or juridical persons. system.
A “deed of transfer” in favor of an alien bank, Courts of First Instance shall
even if it was subject to the obligation that have exclusive jurisdiction over all
the bank dispose of the property within five applications for original registration of
years from the date of acquisition, is title to lands, including improvements
unregisterable. and interests therein, and over all
petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to
DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC AND ACME hear and determine all questions
146 SCRA 509 (1986) arising upon such applications or
petitions. The court through its clerk
Supra. of court shall furnish the Land
Registration Commission with two
Even on the proposition that the certified copies of all pleadings,
land remained technically "public" land, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or
despite immemorial possession of the Infiels issued in applications or petitions for
and their ancestors, until title in their favor land registration, with the exception
was actually confirmed in appropriate of stenographic notes, within five days
proceedings under the Public Land Act, from the filing or issuance thereof.
there can be no serious question of Acme's
right to acquire the land at the time it did, Sec. 17. What and where to
there also being nothing in the 1935 file. - The application for land
Constitution that might be construed to registration shall be filed with the
prohibit corporations from purchasing or Court of First Instance of the province
acquiring interests in public land to which or city where the land is situated. The
the vendor had already acquired that type of applicant shall file together with the
so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. application all original muniments of
The only limitation then extant was that titles or copies thereof and a survey
corporations could not acquire, hold or lease plan of the land approved by the
public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 Bureau of Lands.
hectares. The purely accidental The clerk of court shall not
circumstance that confirmation proceedings accept any application unless it is
were brought under the aegis of the 1973 shown that the applicant has
Constitution which forbids corporations from furnished the Director of Lands with a
owning lands of the public domain cannot
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 50
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 51
Amendments to Application
Form and Contents of Application
PD 1529, Sec. 19. Amendments. -
PD 1529, sec. 15. Form and contents. - Amendments to the application
The application for land registration shall be in including joinder, substitution, or
writing, signed by the application or the person discontinuance as to parties may be
duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to allowed by the court at any stage of
before any officer authorized to administer oaths the proceedings upon just and
for the province or city where the application reasonable terms.
was actually signed. If there is more than one Amendments which shall
applicant, the application shall be signed and consist in a substantial change in the
sworn to by and in behalf of each. The boundaries or an increase in area of
application shall contain a description of the land the land applied for or which involve
and shall state the citizenship and civil status of the inclusion of an additional land
the applicant, whether single or married, and, if shall be subject to the same
married, the name of the wife or husband, and, if requirements of publication and notice
the marriage has been legally dissolved, when as in an original application.
and how the marriage relation terminated. It shall
also state the full names and addresses of all Sec. 21. Requirement of
occupants of the land and those of the adjoining additional facts and papers; ocular
owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall inspection. - The court may require
state the extent of the search made to find them.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 52
facts to be stated in the application in addition to the court based on the altered or amended
those prescribed by this Decree not inconsistent description of which he was not opportunely
therewith and may require the filing of any informed, or because he had no knowledge
additional paper. It may also conduct an ocular of the amendment which was not published.
inspection, if necessary. The real property to be inscribed in the
registry by virtue of the decree of the court
must be identical in its description with that
ORTIZ V. ORTIZ which was the subject of the application of
26 PHIL. 250 its owner and of the proceedings had in the
court.
While an application for the
registration of various parcel real was DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA
pending in the Court of Land Registration, 276 SCRA 279 (1997)
the petitioner sold the property under pacto
de retro to a corporation with juridical Absent publication in a newspaper
personality, and owing to the lapse of of general circulation, the land registration
redemption period, ownership became court cannot validly confirm and register title.
consolidated by operation of law and the Note, though, that the court already acquires
vendor lost all his rights in the properties. jurisdiction upon mere publication in OG.
Therefore the new and lawful owner in Due process, however, mandates
entitled to be subrogate in place of the publication, mailing and posting. The in rem
petitioner, the previous owner, pending nature of land registration cases, the
registration, and he may continue the consequences of default orders issued
proceedings in the case and finally obtain against the whole world, and the objective of
title as owner. (Sec. 29, Act No. 496, and dissemination of the notice in as wide a
arts. 1507 and 1508, Civil Code). manner as possible demand a mandatory
construction of the requirements for
ESCUETA V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS publication, mailing and posting.
16 PHIL. 482
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 53
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 54
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 55
Facts. Dionisio Leong was sued by under oath. When the case was again called
Mandian, widow and second wife Dionisio’s for hearing, the opponents presented an
late father, for usurpation. In answering the amended opposition in exactly the same
complaint, Dionisio pleaded that he language as the previous opposition but
possessed and administered the property as verified in the proper form. Applicants
part of the estate of his late father by opposed. Judge denied admission of said
agreement with Mandian. Celestino, brother amendment and declared opponents in
of Dionisio, filed an answer in intervention default. Motion for reconsideration was filed.
pleading that the lot was acquired during his On the same date, court decreed the land in
second marriage to Mandian but title was favor of applicants.
placed in her name because the husband Petitioners pray that a writ of
was not a Filipino citizen. Celestino filed mandamus issue ordering the respondent
cross-claim against Dionisio for his failure to judge to reinstate the opposition.
give his co-heirs any share in the estate’s
fruits. Held. Demurrer sustained. Petition suffers
No answer having been filed by from defects not curable by amendment.
Dionisio notwithstanding the lapse of 26
days after he was served a copy of the Ratio. Mandamus will not lie when there is
cross-claim, court declared him in default. another plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
Dionisio sought reconsideration on the Petitioners should have taken an exception
ground that the period to answer must be to the order rejecting their amended
counted not from the time he was served a opposition or answer and after the denial of
copy but from the time the court admitted it. their motion for reconsideration, could have
Lower court denied reconsideration. taken their appeal to the Supreme Court.
The order excluding their answer was not a
Held. Appeal dismissed and trial court minor order within the meaning of Sec. 141
ordered to proceed with the hearing of the of the Civil Procedure to which no exception
case. could be taken. It was in effect a final
determination of their rights and may be
Ratio. The order declaring Dionisio in appealed as soon as the decision ordering
default is interlocutory and preliminary to the the issuance of the decree in favor of the
hearing of the case, and remains under the adverse party was rendered.
control of the court, and may be modified or
rescinded by it on sufficient ground at any
time before final judgment. Thus, appeal is D. Hearing, Judgment and Decree of
premature and improper. Registration
A prerequisite to defendant’s right to Hearing
appeal is that he file a motion under Rule 38
asking that the order of default entered PD 1529
against him be set aside. Once such motion
is filed, the defendant, even if his motion is Sec. 27. Speedy hearing;
denied, becomes entitled to all further reference to a referee. - The trial
proceedings including final judgment and court shall see to it that all
may duly appeal therefrom.
registration-proceedings are disposed
or within ninety days from the date
MALAGUM AND ORNOPIA VS. PABLO the case is submitted for decision.
46 PHIL 19 (1924) The Court, if it deems
necessary, may refer the case or any
Facts. Andrin and Anacleta Lopez were the part thereof to a referee who shall
applicants for registration of a parcel of land hear the parties and their evidence,
while Malagum and Ornopia appeared as and the referee shall submit his report
opponents (petitioners in this case). Lower thereon to the Court within fifteen
court granted opponents 24 hours to file days after the termination of such
written opposition. Oppositors presented a hearing. Hearing before a referee may
written opposition which was not verified
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 56
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 57
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 58
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 59
part in submitting his evidence in support of predecessors-in-interest did not apply for
his claim of title to the land described in his land registration, they did not have any
application. vested right or title which was transmissible
to the juridical person. Correa filed an
REPUBLIC VS. LEE action for recovery. RCC filed a MTD on the
ground that the land registration case is on
Facts: Lee filed an application for appeal. TC granted MTD. The CA, as
registration of land on the bare statement regards the land registration case on appeal,
that the land applied for has been in the ruled that the SC ruling used by TC was
possession of her predecessor-in-interest for already overturned, such that juridical
more than 20 years. Director of Lands persons like RCC can now apply for
opposed. TC granted the application. registration. CA ordered registration in favor
of RCC but excluding certain portions in
Issue: WON Lee’s bare statement favor of Correa. RCC appeals CA decision.
constitutes the “well-nigh incontrovertible”
and “conclusive” evidence required in land Issue: WON CA was correct in giving a
registration cases. portion to Correa.
Held: No. The most basic rule in land Held. Yes. Petitioner raises questions of fact
registration cases is that "no person is which are not within the province of the
entitled to have land registered under the present recourse. Settled is the rule that
Cadastral or Torrens system unless he is the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
owner in fee simple of the same, even final and binding upon the Supreme Court if
though there is no opposition presented borne out by the evidence on record. A
against such registration by third persons . . review of the factual findings of the Court of
In order that the petitioner for the registration Appeals is not a function ordinarily
of his land shall be permitted to have the undertaken by the Supreme Court, the rule
same registered, and to have the benefit admitting of only a few exceptions
resulting from the certificate of title, finally recognized under decisional law, which
issued, the burden is upon him to show that exceptions are not obtaining in the case at
he is the real and absolute owner, in fee bar.
simple." Lee must prove the alleged 20 year After the death of RCC’s
or more possession of his predecessors-in- predecessor-in-interest Felix Mangahas,
interest by means of factual support and one-half (1/2) of said land was adjudicated
substantiation. Lee failed to discharge this and partitioned among his five (5) daughters
burden to the satisfaction of the Court. That in a deed of extrajudicial partition. Later,
the representing fiscal did not cross- RCC boought the land form the daughters.
examine her on this point does not help her Based on said transfers, petitioner is now
cause because the burden is upon her. seeking the registration of the whole of Lot
Petition granted. No. 2880 in its name. This we cannot allow.
The deeds of sale relied upon by petitioner
REPUBLIC CEMENT CORP. V. CA, do not constitute sufficient legal justification
CORREA, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF for petitioner's claim over all of Lot No. 2880.
BULACAN (198 SCRA 734) Petitioner's title over said lot, as the
successor in interest of said heirs, is limited
only to whatever rights the latter may have
Facts: Republic Cement Corp (RCC) filed
had therein. It is elementary that a grantor
an application for registration of land. Rayo,
can convey no greater estate than what he
Mangahas and Legaspi opposed as to a
has or in which he has an alienable title or
portion of the land applied for based on
interest.
ownership. Oppositors were later
Petitioner's claim over the excess
substituted by the purchaser Correa. TC
area is premised on the survey allegedly
denied application based on new SC ruling
made by surveyor Villaruz, but the resultant
that “a juridical person, is disqualified to
areas depicted in said survey do not tally
apply for its registration under Section 48 (b)
with, but supposedly consist of expanded
of she Public Land Law” and when its
areas very much larger than, those indicated
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 60
for the lots involved in their respective tax Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain
declarations. These facts are expressly in force; provided, that all
stated by the foregoing parties in the deeds instruments dealing with unregistered
of sale they executed in favor of petitioner lands shall henceforth be registered
over the lots covered by the aforestated tax under Section 113 of this Decree.
declarations. We do not find satisfactory the
stilted explanation advanced to justify the
glaringly excessive disparity of areas REPUBLIC V. FELICIANO
resulting after the supposed survey. 148 SCRA 424 (1987)
It does not appear from our scrutiny
of the records, despite petitioner's Facts: Feliciano filed a complaint with the
representations in its written offer of CFI of Camarines Sur against the Republic
evidence filed in the court a quo, that the of the Philippines for recovery of ownership
purported survey plans of the lots involved of a parcel of land. Feliciano alleges that he
were actually submitted in evidence therein. bought the property from Victor Cardiola
Neither was it alleged and proved that they who in turn acquired the property from a
were approved by the Director of Lands. It Francisco Abrazado. Abrazado’s claim to
has long been held that unless a survey plan ownership is by virtue of an informacion
is duly approved by the Director of Lands, posesoria. Feliciano took actual possession
the same is of dubious value and is not of the land and introduced improvements.
acceptable as evidence. Indubitably, Government claimed ownership by virtue of
therefore, the reputed survey and its alleged Proclamation 90 which reserved for
results are not entitled to credit and should settlement purposes a tract of land which
be rejected. An applicant for registration of includes Feliciano’s land. Feliciano filed an
land, if he relies on a document evidencing action praying that he be declared rightful
his title thereto, must prove not only the and true owner by virtue of the informacion
genuineness of said title but also the identity posesoria of his predecessor-in-interests.
of the land therein referred to. If he only
claims a portion of what is included in his Issue: WON ownership is vested by virtue
title, he must clearly prove that the property of the informacion posesoria.
sought to be registered is included in that
title. Held/ Ratio Decidendi : No. The inscription in
the property registry of an informacion posesoria
under the Spanish Mortgage law was a means
Spanish Titles provided by the law then in force in the
Philippines prior to the transfer of sovereignty
PD 1529, Sec. 3. Status of other from Spain to US, to record a claimant’s actual
pre-existing land registration possession of a piece of land, established through
system. - The system of registration an ex parte proceeding. Such inscription merely
under the Spanish Mortgage Law is furnishes, at best, prima facie evidence of the
hereby discontinued and all lands fact that at the time the proceeding was held, the
recorded under said system which are claimant was in possession of the land under a
not yet covered by Torrens title shall claim of right. The possessory information could
be considered as unregistered lands. ripen into a record of ownership after the lapse
Hereafter, all instruments of 20 years upon the fulfillment of the requisites.
affecting lands originally registered There is no showing in the case at bar that the
under the Spanish Mortgage Law may informacion posesoria held by the respondent
be recorded under Section 113 of this had been converted into a record of ownership.
Decree, until the land shall have been Such possessory information, therefore,
brought under the operation of the remained at best mere prima facie evidence of
Torrens system. possession.
The books of registration for
unregistered lands provided under
Section 194 of the Revised Tax Declarations
Administrative Code, as amended by
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 61
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 62
SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS VS THE Also, the spanish grant (a written instrument
MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU (19 PHIL 32) acknowledging the superior title of the
Seminary and limited the purpose of the
Facts: The Seminary of San Carlos asks for City’s possession of the land) given by the
the registration of two pieces of land located governor-general then, recognizing the
in Cebu, alleging as its source of title a royal Seminary’s right was binding upon the City
cession from the King of Spain. The City of and conclusive as to the character thereof.
Cebu denies the title of the petitioner and But the Seminary is likewise bound to honor
alleges in itself ownership of the land in the purposes for which the City can occupy
question, stating that its title is based upon the land (so long as the paseo exists).
possession thereof required by law to effect
title by prescription.
RAMOS V CA
The land in question as claimed by the (FEB. 3, 1999)
seminary, includes a portion of one of the
public squares of that city. So aside from Facts: supra
the question of ownership, the two related
matters resolved by the court involved the Held/ Ratio Decidendi: Under the law, an
quantity of the land and its precise location. action for reconveyance of real property
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 63
resulting from fraud prescribes in four years jurisdiction to consider this case. Hence,
from the discovery of fraud. Discovery of this appeal.
the fraud must be deemed to have taken
place when Lucia Bautista was issued OCT Held/ Ratio Decidendi: The main question
Nos. 17811 and 17812 because registration is: When does the registration of title, under
of real property is considered constructive the Torrens System of Land Registration,
notice to all persons and it shall be counted especially under the different Philippine
from the time of such registering, filing, or laws, establishing the Cadastral System,
entering. An action based on implied or become final, conclusive and indisputable?
constructive trust prescribes in 10 years. As a general rule, registration of title under
This means that petitioners should have the cadastral system is final, conclusive and
enforced the trust within 10 years from the indisputable after the passage of the 30 day
time of its creation or upon the alleged period allowed for an appeal from the date
fraudulent registration of property. But as it of receipt by the party of a copy of the
is, petitioners failed to avail of any of the judgment of the court adjudicating
aforementioned remedies within the ownership without any step having been
prescribed periods. With NO remedy in view, taken to perfect an appeal. The prevailing
their claims should forever be foreclosed. party may then have execution of the
Likewise, the Court reiterated on the judgment as a matter of right and is entitled
protection afforded by the Torrens System to the certificate of title issued by the Chief
(once its title is registered, owner may rest of the Land Registration Office. The
secure.. so no abandonment can work exception is the special provision providing
against the private respondents. for fraud.
In this case, the Court explained
that there are 3 actions taken after trial in a
E. Hearing, Judgment and Decree cadastral case. First, adjudicates ownership
in favor of claimants. Second, declaration by
Hearing and Notice the court that the decree is final and its order
for the issuance of the certificates of title by
GOV’T OF THE PHIL, VASQUEZ, the Chief of the Land Registration Office
GAYARES V ABURAL (such order is made within 30 days from
(39 PHIL 996) date of receipt of a copy of the decision,
there being no appeal made). Third,
devolves upon the General Land
Facts: Cadastral proceedings were
Registration Office to prepare the final
commenced in Negros Occidental upon an
decrees in all adjudicated cases. Indeed,
application of the Director of Lands in 1916.
the judgment in a cadastral survey, including
Notices were issued. Vasquez and Gayares,
the rendition of the decree, is a judicial act.
although residing in the same municipality
As the law says, the judicial decree when
and participated in other cadastral cases,
final is the basis of the certificate of title.
did NOT enter any opposition. Hearing then
The issuance of a decree by the LRO is
issued, and the lower court issued a final
ministerial act. The date on which the
decree ordering the Chief of the General
defeated party receives a copy of the
Land Registration Office to issue the
decision, begins the running of the time for
decrees corresponding to the lots adjudged
the interposition of a motion for new trial or
in the decision. Eight months later, but
appeal. Herein, the claim after 8 months will
before the issuance by the Land
not be allowed by the Court.
Registration Office of the so-called technical
decree, Vasquez and Gayares came into the
case for the first time, claiming complete MAGBANUA, PINEDA V DIZON,
ignorance of the proceedings. The lower DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND FORESTRY
court however, denied their motion for new (73 PHIL. 622)
trial, saying that there was already a decree
rendered by the Court and there being no Facts: Petitioners applied in the CFI of Iloilo
allegation of fraud, the Court has no for the registration of a parcel of land. This
was opposed by the DOL and DOF claiming
that the applicants have no sufficient title to
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 64
the land, and that a portion thereof formed The DOL filed a notice of appeal
part of the provincial road. Hearing ensued, with the SC. PIDC was furnished a copy of
and in there, an agreement was reached the notice, but no copy was sent to Roman
wherein the applicants ceded to the Tamayo. Pending approval of the records of
government the land claimed by it (excluding appeal, PIDC and RT filed a motion for the
it in their application). As such, the Court issuance of a decree of registration pending
rendered a decision bestowing parcels A appeal. The DOL opposed.
and C to applicants and ceding parcel B to
the government. The decision was silent The lower court on March 11, 1967 ordered
however to one parcel of land (parcel D). In the issuance of a decree of registration of
the decision, the applicants were ordered to the entire land, 1/3 pro indiviso in favor of
submit an amended plan duly approved by RT, and 2/3 in favor of PIDC – the latter
the BOL corresponding to the technical subject to the final outcome of the appeal,
description as agreed upon. while the former absolute since RT was not
The DOL however filed a motion for furnished a Notice of Appeal.
reconsideration based on the Court’s failure OCT No. 0-311 was isued by the
to include parcel D in its claim. Petitioners register of deeds on March 14, 1967. The
opposed the MFR, saying that the judge no DOL filed a petition to nullify the LC’s order
longer has jurisdiction because the decision dated march 11, 1967, the decree of reg
had become final. issued pursuant thereto, and the OCT No. 0-
311 issued by the ROD.
Held/ Ratio Decidendi: DOL can file MFR
because decision is NOT yet final. In view ISSUE: WON the OCT No. 0-3151 may be
of the necessity for the applicants to present nullified.
a new plan as a result of their agreement
whereby it was agreed that parcels B and D HELD: Yes. Under the circumstances of the
were to be excluded in favor of the case, the failure of the appellants to serve a
government. The decision could not acquire copy of their Notice of Appeal to RT is not
finality until the amended plan was fatal to the appeal because, admittedly, he
presented. Indeed, such decisions which was served with a copy of the original, as
leave something yet to be done by the well as the Amended record on appeal in
parties and the court before it can be both of which the Notice3 of Appeal is
enforced, has in various cases been embodied. Hence, such failure cannot
declared by the Court as interlocutory and impair the right of appeal.
not appealable. What is more, the appeal taken by
the gov't was from the entire decision, which
ALINSUNURIN V. DIR OF LANDS was not severable. Thus, the appeal affects
(68 SCRA 177) the whole decision.
In any event, We rule that execution
FACTS: On Feb. 24, 1964, Alipinoi pending appeal is NOT applicable in land
Alinsunurin filed an application for registration proceedings. It is fraught with
registration under Act No. 496 of a vast tract dangerous consequences. Innocent
of land in nueva Ecija. The director of lands purchasers may be misled into purchasing
opposed the application, claiming that the real properties upon reliance on a judgment
applicant was not in open, continuous which may be reversed on appeal.
possession of the land for at least 30 years, A Torrens title issued on the basis of
and that part of the land was a military a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is
reservation, therefore inalienable land. violative of the express provision of the LRA
On Nov. 19, 1966, the lower court w/c requires that a decree shall be issued
rendered a decision in favor of the only after the decision adjudicating the title
applicants, ordering the registration of the becomes final and executory, and it is on the
land in the names of: (Paranaque basis of said decree that the ROD
Investment and Devt. Corp. (PIDC/ concerned issues the corresponding
successor-in-interest of Alinsunurin); and (2) certificate of title.
Roman Tamayo as to 1/3 portion of the land. Consequently, the LC acted w/o
jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 65
ordering the issuances of a decree of reg. form and contents of such decrees. The
Despite the appeal taken from the entire decision of the trial court in a land
decision a quo. registration case, ordering the issuance of a
decree of registration within the meaning of
DE LOS REYES V. DE VILLA Sec. 38 of the LRA.
(48 PHIL 227) In preparing and signing the final
decree of registration, the chief of the GLRO
FACTS: Delos Reyes filed an application for acts in his capacity as Chief Clerk of the CFI
the registration of 2 parcels of land situated in land registration matters, and not as an
in the municipality of Mariaya, Tayabas. The administrative one. It is the last word of the
CFI rendered a decision in favor of delos court to the registration and is the basis for
Reyes, ordering the issuance of a decree of the issuance of the certificate of title.
registration and OCT as soon as the In the absence of evidence to the
decision becomes final. The court issued an contrary, the date noted on the final decree
order directing the Land Reg Office to of registration, as the date of its issuance
prepare a final decree of registration. Such and entry, must be regarded as the true date
was issued on Nov 22, 1923. of such entry, and the year within which a
Braulio de Villa filed a petition for petition for review must be presented begins
review of the decree under Sec 38 of the to run from that date.
LRA, alleging that the registration of land
was obtained by fraud. The petition was
opposed by delos Reyes on the ground that YUSON V. DIAZ
it had been presented after the expiration of (42 PHIL. 22)
the time allowed under sec 38. DLR
maintains that the decree of March 31, 1923 Facts: Yuson purchased a parcel of land
was the reckoning point of the 1-year period from Lopez, to whom OCT no. 999 was
under Sec. 38, hence the petition was issued by the CFI (Lopez was the applicant
presented out of time. for registration). When Yuson took
Appelant de Villa contends that the possession of the land, they found the
1-yr period commenced on Nov. 22, 1923 respondents in possession of the part of the
when the final decree of registration was land. The latter were asked to leave the
issued by the GLRO; therefore, the petition land, but they refused. The respondents
was presented well within the one year claim that they purchased the land in good
period provided for in Sec. 38. faith from one Graciano Garcia.
The Land Reg. Court issued a writ
ISSUE: When does the one-year period for of possession in favor of Lopez, by virtue of
the petition for review commence? which Lopez was placed in possession of
the land. In the case at bar, Yuson filed
RATIO: Upon the issuance of the final petition/motion to issue a writ of possession
decree of registration, as described under to compel the respondents to surrender the
Section 40, by the chief of the general Land land to Yuson.
Reg. Office. De Villa’s petition was timely The respondents maintain that, in
presented. view of the right of possession which they
The petition for review under Sec. claim to have acquired over the parcel of
38 of the LRA must be presented within one land, they cannot be dispossessed thereof
year after the entry of the decree of by means of a simple motion.
registration described and defined in Sec. 40 Yuson claims that it is entitled to a
of the same act. writ of possession, relying on Sec. 39 of the
The LRA expressly recognizes 2 LRA. It is claimed that Sec. 39 guarantees
classes of decrees in land registration that the purchaser of registered land for
proceedings, namely, decrees of value shall hold the same free and clear
confirmation and registration dealt with in from any and all prior claims and
sections 30-41 of the Act, and the decrees encumbrances, except those set forth in the
dismissing the application. It will be noted decree of registration and those expressly
that Sec. 38 speaks of the former class. mentioned in the Act as having been
Sec. 40 defines and describes the reserved against it.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 66
The CFI Judge refused to issue the 2. when a person seeks reconstitution of
writ of possession. Hence, this petition. a certificate of title over a piece of
property that he does not actually
Issue: WON the successors-in-interest of possess
the applicants can acquire possession of
said parcel of land actually occupied by the
respondents by means of a petition asking BLAS, SIMEON VS. DELA CRUZ
for a writ of possession? (37 PHIL. 1)
Held: No. An independent action for
Facts: Dela Cruz filed an application for
reconveyance or unlawful detainer is
registration of a parcel of land under the
necessary.
Torrens system. Blas presented an
Under the facts stated in the
opposition, claiming that he was the owner
decision, it is improper to issue the
of a portion of land described in the petition.
peremptory writ of mandamus against a
Lower court ruled in favor of Blas, but the
judge to compel him to issue a writ of
SC ruled otherwise. The SC ordered that
possession in favor of the owner of the
the portion w/c was claimed by Blas be
registered land occupied by a third person
registered in the name of V. dela Cruz.
who has not been defeated after trial.
Blas filed this present petition to
Sec. 39 of the LRA w/c states that
obtain an injunction against dela Cruz to
an OCT issued by virtue of a decree of reg.
prevent him from destroying the buildings
And every subsequent purchaser for value
and improvements over the subject land.
receives a certificate and those mentioned in
Blas claims that these byuildings fall under
Sec. 39. The meaning of the words “free
“exceptional encumbrances” provided for
from all encumbrances” does not include
under Sec. 39 of Act 496. Therefore,
adverse possession of a third person who
despite the absence of any notation in the
subsequent to the decree entered and
certificate of title as to these buildings, these
occupied the said land.
encumbrances must be recognized by dela
By virtue of Sec. 17 of the LRA, the
Cruz.
Land Registration Court may, in cases falling
within its jurisdiction, enforce its orders,
Issue: 1. Does the decree ordering the
judgments or decrees in the same manner
registration of land under the Torrens system
as the CFI, including a writ of possession.
include the buildings and improvements
But when OTHER persons have
thereon, when they have not been expressly
subsequently entered the property, claiming
excluded in said decree? Ans: YES
right of possession, the owner of the
2. May Blas claim said buildings as
registered property or his successors in
his property and remove the same or
interest CANNOT dispossess such persons
prevent the owner of the land under said
by merely asking for a writ of possession.
decree from removing or destroying the
He who believes himself entitled to
same, even if he had not made any claim to
deprive another of the possession of real
said improvements during the proceedings
property must come to the courts of justice,
for registration? Ans: No.
instituting, as the case may be, and action
for unlawful entry or detainer, or the
Held: The general purpose of the Torrens
reinvindicatory action authorized under the
System is to forever foreclose litigation
Civil Code.
concerning the title to land. Every decree of
registration shall bind the land, and quiet title
When a Writ of Possession is Not
thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated
Proper: by law. If the objector (Blas) may, during the
1. when a 3rd person enters into and pendency of the case, remain silent as to
occupies the land subsequent to the certain rights, interests or claims existing in
decree of registration or upon the land, and then later, by a
proper recourse would be an separate action, have such interest litigated,
action for illegal entry/unlawful then the purpose of the Torrens System will
detainer or a reinvidicatory action be defeated.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 67
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 68
A petition for relief from judgment title issued become incontrovertible, and
under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court can the person aggrieved loses his recourse to
be resorted to in instances where the this remedy.
judgment was entered through fraud, However, even if a petition is filed
accident, mistake, or excusable within 1 year from the entry of the decree,
negligence (FAME for short). the courts cannot entertain such petition if
This petition must be verified and the rights of an innocent purchaser for
filed within 60 days after the petitioner value may be prejudiced.
learns of the judgment to be set aside,
but not more than 6 months after such This 1-year period commences upon
judgment was entered. It must be the issuance of the final decree of
accompanied by affidavits showing the registration by the LRA (De los Reyes
FAME relied upon, and the facts v. De Villa, supra)
constituting the petitioner's good and
substantial cause of action or defense. MERCEDES ANICETA GARCIA, ET AL
This remedy can be availed of only VS. DOMINADOR G. MENDOZA
when the judgment has become final and 14 SCRA 691 (1965)
the remedies of new trial or appeal are no
longer available. FACTS: Petitioner Mercedes A. Garcia
claims that she and her husband, Cirilo
Mendoza, had purchased Lot No. 32080
(3) Appeal located in San Carlos City, Pangasinan on
April 24, 1938. They subsequently sold it
The judgment and orders of the court under a Pacto de Retro sale to co-
hearing the land registration case are petitioners Sps. Dulcesimo Rosario and
appealable to the Court of Appeals in the Violeta Reyes and Erlinda O. Rosario
same manner as in ordinary actions. (Petitioners), who then took possession of
said lot.
On February 23, 1988, the cadastral
court issued a decision adjudicating Lot No.
(4) Petition for Review of 32080 in favor of Dominador G. Mendoza
Decree of Registration (hereafter, Mendoza), their son.
Petitioner Garcia claims that there
A petition for reopening and review of was actual fraud because Mendoza falsely
decree of registration under Sec. 32 of PD claimed that his father, Cirilo Mendoza,
1529 may be resorted to provided that the inherited the property from Hermenegildo
ff. requisites are present: Mendoza (Cirilo's alleged father); that
Mendoza made it appear that Lot 32080 was
(1) the petitioner has a real and an exclusive property of Cirilo Mendoza,
dominical right; who had been in possession of the lot since
(2) that he has been deprived October 15, 1987, and subsequently,
thereof; donated the same to his son, Mendoza.
(3) through fraud (actual or On September 2, 1988, the
extrinsic); petitioners filed with the court a petition for
(4) that the petition is filed within one review of judgment. This was denied in an
year from the issuance of the Order dated December 6, 1988. Mendoza
decree (Yabut Lee v. Punzalan); countered that a petition for relief from
judgment under Sec. 38, Act No. 496, does
and
not apply to a cadastral proceeding.
(5) the property has not as yet been
Moreover, Mendoza alleged that he had filed
transferred to an innocent his claim over Lot No. 32080
purchaser for value
ISSUE: WON the remedy of petition for
Once the 1-year period lapses, the review of judgment exists or is warranted by
decree of registration and the certificate of Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act):
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 69
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 70
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 71
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 72
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 73
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 74
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 75
Eusebio Coloma, also applied for reasons to doubt the veracity of the
registration in favor, under the system, the supposed fraudulent acts, attributed to
ssame parcels. Before the initial hearings of respondents. This doubt, however, should
the two applications, Guillermo Camungao not have been made the basis of dismissal,
(petitioner herein), presented with the because if a court doubts the veracity of the
Registration Court, a written appearance, allegations in the petition, the best thing it
opposing the registration of Lots 2, of both could do, would have been to deny the
PSUS, alleging that said lots belonged to motion to dismiss and proceed with the
him, having been awarded to him in Sales hearing on the merits, of the petition (De
Application No. 2091 (E-3989). The Jesus, et al. vs. Belarmino, et al., 50 O.G.,
Provincial Fiscal, representing the Director p. 3064). This is specially true in the instant
of Lands, filed an opposition to the case, where the ground for the motion to
applications for registration, alleging that the dismiss the petition for review, is lack of
lots, are public lands and covered by Sales cause of action, which is not indubitable.
Application No. 2091 (E-3989) of Guillermo The written appearance with
Camungao. On August 22, 1952, the lower opposition presented by petitioner herein, on
court issued an Order of General Default in November 7, 1951 (R.A.) was a valid one,
both cases, except as to the Director of and sufficient to give him a legal standing in
Lands. A hearing was subsequently held, court and would entitle him to notice, as a
with notice thereof, sent only to the matter of right. The lower court erred in
Provincial Fiscal, as representative of the having chosen to ignore the written
Director of Lands. No notice to Guillermo appearance with opposition, which was a
Camungao, was given, in spite of his written substantial compliance with the law, that
appearance and opposition to the requires a formal answer.
registration. Judgment was rendered on
September 20, 1955, adjudicating the lands
applied for, in favor of the applicants. The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS.
judgment having become final and TEODOCIA LOZADA,
executory the court a quo issued an order 90 SCRA 503 (1979)
for the issuance of a decree of registration.
On January 21, 1956, an Order of eviction FACTS: In her application for the registration
was directed against appellant, and it was of the lots in question, applicant did not
the first time he came to know that a disclose the vital facts that her husband's
decision and decree had been rendered and previous application for a revocable permit
issued in the registration cases. Camungao and to purchase the lands in question from
filed a petition to set aside the decision. The the Bureau of Lands had been rejected,
court dismissed the petition for review. because the lands were already reserved
as a site for school purposes. She
ISSUE: WON there was actual fraud concealed the fact that the lands were part
of the public domain and stated the
HELD: It is contended that, in cases of the deliberate falsehood that the lands were
nature of the one at bar, the only basis for allegedly inherited by her from her parents,
the re-opening of the case, is actual fraud. which allegation misled the Bureau of Lands
There was allegation of actual fraud in the into not filing an opposition to her application
petition, such as the failure and intentional and thus effectively deprived the Republic of
omission on the part of the respondents to its day in court. Applicant succeeded on ex
disclose the fact of actual physical parte evidence in securing registration of the
possession of the premises by petitioner property.
herein. It is fraud to knowingly omit or Within one year from entry of
conceal a fact, upon which benefit is decree, the Solicitor General filed a petition
obtained to the prejudice of a third person for review of the decision and decree of
(Estiva vs. Alvero, 37 Phil. 498). In short, the registration on the ground of actual fraud.
series of allegations contained in the The Court of First Instance gave due course
petition, portions of which are quoted to the petition and after hearing ordered the
heretofore, describe fraudulent acts, actual cancellation of the certificate of title in favor
and otherwise. Perhaps, the trial judge had of applicant-appellant. Applicant-appellant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 76
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 77
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 78
the case at bar, reconveyance is not the belonging to the plaintiffs, of which the
proper remedy as there was no proof of defendants had full knowledge. The sale in
irregularity in the issuance of the title nor in favor of defendants, however, is not void or
the proceedings incident thereto. It was also inexistent, action on which is
not established that fraud had intervened in imprescripltible. It is voidable, at most, and
the issuance of the title and the period of as such valid until revoked within the time
one year within w/c intrinsic fraud could be prescribed by law for its revocation.. An
claimed had long expired. Furthermore, the action for reconveyance based on an
petitioner’s action had also prescribed as an implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years.
action for reconveyance must be filed within The plaintiffs cause of action accrued in
four (4) years from the discovery of the 1928 when the defendants bought the land
fraud. and took possession thereof from Ildefonsa.
However, plaintiffs-appellants only filed the
present action for reconveyance on
ALZONA V. CAPUNITAN, November of 1949 or 13 years after the
4 SCRA 450 (1962) COA accrued. Thus, the action had long
prescribed.
Facts: Plaintiffs instituted an action for the
recovery of two registered parcels of land
and for the cancellation of the corresponding VDA DE JACINTO V VDA DE JACINTO,
certificates of title in the names of the 5 SCRA 371 (1962)
defendants and the issuance of the proper
certificates in their names. The TC Facts: The land in question originally
dismissed the complaint on the grounds of belonged to the now deceased spouses
estoppel and prescription of action. On Jacinto, both of whom died intestate
appeal, the CA found that the subject land survived by their children named Melchor
was the conjugal property of Arcadio Alomia and Pedro. Melchor also died intestate
and Ildefonsa Almeda. Said land was before the estate of their parents could be
bought by Arcadio from the Friar Lands partitioned. After the partition, Pedro,
Administration and a Patent Title was issued besides receiving his share, continued
in his favor. However before completing administering the properties which
payment of the installments, Arcadiio died. corresponded to the heirs of his deceased
Upon Arcadio’s death, Ildefonsa executed brother. Pedro applied for the registration
an affidavit that she was the sole heir of and succeeded in having the properties
Arcadio. She was made the assignee registered in his name
thereof and after completion of the When the widow of his deceased
installment payments, a Certificate of Title brother decided to sell the parcel of land,
was issued in her favor. Defendant she realized for the first time, that the parcel
Capunitan was a niece of Ildefonsa who delivered to her by Pedro had a smaller area
bought the property from the latter. The CA than that which rightfully belonged to her
also found that plaintiffs, nieces and and her son.
nephews of Arcadio, are entitled to the other
half of the disputed property and that HELD: In view of these facts, it would be
Ildefonsa exercised a legal fraud when she against reason and good conscience not to
executed said affidavit. She, therefore, held hold that Pedro committed a breach of trust
in trust the other half of the property in favor which entitled him to secure registration of
of the plaintiffs. The case, however, was the land in question to the prejudice of his
remanded to the TC. TC later held that coheirs. In an action like the present, he
although the plaintiffs have the right to ask may be ordered to make reconveyance of
for reconveyance, their cause of action has the property to the person rightfully entitled
already prescribed. to it. In fact, it has been held that even in
the absence of fraud in obtaining
HELD: The case involves an implied or registration, or even after the lapse of one
constructive trust upon the defendants- year after the issuance of a decree of
appellees. The CA declared that Ildefonsa registration, a co-owner of land who applied
held in trust the ½ of the property legally for and secured its adjudication and
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 79
registration in his name knowing that it had if the property has passed into the hands of
not been allotted to him in the partition, may an innocent purchaser for value, for
be compelled to convey the same to damages. Petitioner availed herself of this
whoever received it in the apportionment, so remedy seasonably.
long as no innocent third party had acquired Prescription cannot be invoked in an
rights therein, in the meantime, for a action for reconveyance which is in effect an
valuable consideration. action to quiet title, against the plaintiff
An action to enforce a trust is therein who is in possession of the land in
imprescriptible. Consequently, a coheir question. The reason is that as lawful
who, through fraud, succeeds in obtaining a possessor and owner of the disputed
certificate of title in his name to the prejudice portion, her cause of action for
of his coheirs, is deemed to hold the land in reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to
trust for the latter, and the action by them to quiet title to property in one’s possession, is
recover the property does not prescribe. imprescriptible. The petitioner’s undisturbed
possession over a period of 48 years gave
her a continuing right to seek the aid of a
ALMARZA V ARGUELLES, Court of equity to determine the nature of
156 SCRA 718 (1987) the adverse claim of a third party and the
effect on her title.
Facts: Lot No. 5815 originally belonged to If ever prescription may be invoked,
private respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, it may be said to have commenced to run
Grana. The latter sold a portion thereof to only from the time the possessor was made
petitioner. Said portion was physically aware of a claim adverse to his own. In the
segregated from the whole lot and was case at bar, petitioner was made aware of
taken possession of by petitioner. such adverse claim only upon service on her
In a cadastral case, the court of the summons in the civil case. As her
declared private respondents owner of ½ action for reconveyance, or to quiet title was
undivided share of Lot No. 5815 and a contained in her counterclaim, the same
certain Pancrudo (deceased) as owner of cannot be said to have already prescribed.
the other ½. OCT was issued in the name
of said adjudicatees.
Private respondents instituted a TAMAYO V CALLEJO,
complaint for recovery against the petitioner. 46 SCRA 27 (1972)
The latter interposed a counterclaim for
reconveyance of the disputed portion of Lot Facts: A parcel of land was previously
No. 5815. owned by spouses Vicente Tamayo and
The LC ordered petitioner to vacate Cirila Tamayo. They sold the northern
and dismissed the counterclaim of the portion of said land to Fernendo Domantay,
petitioner fo the reason that although a who took possession thereof. Vicente died
constructive or implied trust was constituted and Cirila waived her rights to the remaining
in favor of petitioner when the disputed portion of their original property to their
portion was included in the OCT issued to children, Marcos and Mariano. These
private respondents, petitioner’s action for brothers were declared the sole heirs of the
reconveyance had prescribed, more than deceased. The brothers applied in a
ten years having elapsed from the issuance cadastral proceeding for the registration of
of said certificate of title. the land. The application was granted and
OCT was issued in favor of the brothers.
HELD: SC reverses. The remedy of a Domantay sold his property in favor
landowner whose property has been of Callejo who took possession thereof.
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the Marcos sold his undivided share to Mariano.
name of another is, after one year from the Callejo filed a complaint for reconveyance
date of the decree, not to set aside the and damages against Mariano. CFI
decree, but respecting the decree as dismissed the complaint on the ground that
incontrovertible and no longer open to the land purchased by Domantay from the
review, to bring an ordinary action in the parents of Mariano is not included in said
ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or titles of Mariano. The CA reversed and
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 80
overruled the plea of prescription set up by deemed made without a survey defining with
Mariano upon the theory that the title to said precision the metes and bounds of the area
portion of land now claimed by Callejo is to be segregated for Callejo. Accordingly,
held in trust by the Tamayos and that the the case was remanded to the court of origin
action to enforce said trust does not for the preparation of the subdivision plan of
prescribe. the portion to be segregated and the judicial
approval of said plan, and only after such
HELD: CA affirmed with modification. CA approval has become final and executory
did not err in overruling the plea of may the reconveyance be either made or
prescription. Prescription of action for deemed effected.
reconveyance is reckoned from the date of
creation of the express trust. Although the
trust created by the application for JOAQUIN V COJUANGCO,
registration filed by Mariano and Marcos in 20 SCRA 769 (1967)
1913, and the inclusion in the OCT issued in
their names of the tract of land previously Facts: The OCT of the first parcel of land
sold to Domantay and later conveyed to involved in this case was issued as early as
Callejo may have had a constructive or 1921. Said parcel was transferred in favor of
implied nature, its status was substantially the defendants who obtained a TCT in their
affected in 1918 by the following facts, own names in 1928. With respect to the
namely: On the date last mentioned, second parcel, OCT was acquired in 1925
Domantay and Mariano – the latter acting on and the land was subsequently transferred
his own behalf and on that of his brother to defendants also in 1925. TCT was issued
Marcos – executed a public instrument to the transferees in 1936.
whereby Mariano EXPLICITLY
acknowledged that his deceased parents HELD: The action in this case is one for
had sold to Domantay the parcel of land reconveyance, on the theory that the original
then held by the latter, and stipulating that registered owners were the administrators of
Domantay is the absolute owner of said those lands, and hence held them in a
land, free from any lien or encumbrance fiduciary capacity. Even assuming that this
thereon. was true, the disabilities imposed by such
This express recognition by Mariano relationship did not extend to the transferees
– on his behalf and that of his brother of said administrators, who acquired the
Marcos – of the previous sale made by their land for value and claimed adverse title in
parents to Domantay, had the effect of themselves. The action for reconveyance
imparting to the aforementioned trust the on the theory of trust might prosper, if at all,
nature of an express trust – it having been as against the trustees and provided they
created by the will of the parties, “no still hold the properties, but not as against
particular words” being “required for the third persons who do not occupy the same
creation of an express trust, it being fiduciary position.
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended”.
This express trust is a “continuing and
subsisting” trust, not subject to the statute of (6) Action for Damages
limitations, at least, until repudiated, in which
event the period of prescription begins to run
Substitute for action for reconveyance
only from the time of the repudiation. The
latter did not take place in the case at bar, if an innocent purchaser for value
until early in June, 1952, when Mariano intervenes
rejected Callejo’s demand that the now if based on constructive trust: 10
disputed portion be excluded from the TCT years
in the former’s name. But then, the case at if based on fraud: 4 years
bar was filed weeks later when the period of
prescription had barely begun to run. PINO V. COURT OF APPEALS,
The CA declared that the land in 198 SCRA 434 (1991)
question is “declared reconveyed” to Callejo.
Such reconveyance cannot, however, be
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 81
FACTS: Rafaela Donato, Raymund fraudulently deprived of his land, which was
Gaffud and Cicero Gaffud were co-owners of subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser
a lot. The title of the lot was only in the for value, is to file an action for damages
name of Rafaela Donato. Donato sold to against the person who perpetrated the
Pino the lot. A TCT was issued in the name fraud within 4 years after the discovery of
of Pino. The Gaffuds filed a complaint for the deception.
nullity of sale and reconveyance against
Pino.
(7) Assurance Fund
HELD: The Supreme Court said that the
complaint for nullity of sale and Sec. 93. Contribution to the
reconveyance must fail. Pino is a purchaser Assurance Fund
in good faith. Where the certificate of title is
in the name of the vendor when the land is Imposed upon the entry of a
sold, the vendee for value has the right to certificate of title in the name
rely on what appears on the certificate of of the registered owner (also
title. In the absence of anything to excite or applies to registration of
arouse suspicion, said vendee is under no building and other
obligation to look beyond the certificate and improvements on the land
investigate the title of the vendor appearing covered by the certificate)
on the face of said certificate.
Amount imposed is .25% of the
If an action for reconveyance based
assessed value of the real
on constructive trust cannot reach an
estate. The assessed value
innocent purchaser for value, the remedy of
shall be based on the last
the defrauded party is to bring an action for
assessment for tax purposes. If
damages against those who caused the
there has be no previous
fraud or were instrumental in depriving him
assessment, then the
of the property. And it is now well-settled
that such action prescribes in 10 years from assessment shall be
the issuance of the Torrens Title over the determined by the sworn
property. declaration of 2 disinterested
persons. However, in any
event, if the value of the
property is too small, then the
DE LOS REYES V. COURT OF APPEALS,
court can always increase the
285 SCRA 81 (1998)
valuation of the property.
FACTS: De los Reyes sold to Pena
Sec. 94. Custody and Investment of
property which had an area of 10,000
the Fund
square meters. However, Pena’s title did
All contributions to the
not cover only the 10,000 square meters but
assurance fund which are
also an additional 3,405 which De los Reyes
received by the Register of
did not sell. The property passed to five
owners successively in a span of more than Deeds shall be turned over to
twenty years. De los Reyes filed an action the National Treasurer. The
for reconveyance of the 3,405 square meter National Treasurer can invest
property. the money as may be provided
for by law.
HELD The Supreme Court said that the
complaint for reconveyance must fail. The Sec. 95. Action for Compensation
property passed to four owners from Fund
successively in a span of more than twenty
years before it reached the current owners. Only the following persons can
Surely, the rights of innocent purchasers of recover from the assurance fund:
real property must be protected. In Avecilla 1. Any person who sustains
v. Yatco, the Supreme Court ruled that the loss or damage under the
only remedy of an owner who was following conditions:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 82
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 83
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 84
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 85
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 86
Where two certificates of title are In one case the SC held that if the
issued to different persons covering the land covered by the homestead application
same land in whole or in part, the earlier in of petitioner was still within the forest zone
date must prevail as between the original or under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
parties, and in case of successive Forestry, the Director of Lands has no
registration where more than one certificate jurisdiction to dispose of said land under the
is issued over the land the person holding provisions of the Public Land Law and the
under the prior certificate is entitled to the applicant acquired no right to the land.
land as against the person who relies on the Also, if a person obtains a title under
second certificate. the Public Land Act w/c includes, by
oversight, lands w/c cannot be registered
under the Torrens System, or when the
Cancellation suit involving non- Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction
registrable property (reversion suit) over the same because it is a public forest,
the grantee does not, by virtue of the said
REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS, certificate of title alone, become the owner
99 SCRA 743 (1980) of the land illegally included.
The patent of title thus issued is void
FACTS : A motion to reopen at law, since the officer who issued it had no
cadastral case was filed by Alpuerto. After authority to do so.
trial the court rendered its decision Under these circumstances, the
adjudicating to him the subject lot and certificate of title may be ordered cancelled
ordered the issuance of a decree of and the cancellation may be pursued
registration over the said lot. Hence, Land through an ordinary action therefor.
Registration Commission issued a decree. The doctrine of estoppel cannot
This was the basis of the issuance of the operate against the State. “It is a well-settled
OCT. Portions of the lot were subsequently rule in our jurisdiction that the Republic or its
transferred to various persons. government is usually not estopped by
Later the provincial fiscal of Quezon mistake or error on the part of its officials or
filed a MFR on the ground that the said agents.
decision was obtained through fraud, The state may still seek the
misrepresentation and deceit. The Director cancellation of the title issued to Alpuerto
of Land joined the fiscal, on the ground that pursuant to Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act.
the same was issued on the wrong premise, Such title has not become indefeasible, for
i.e. that the decision of the court had already prescription cannot be invoked against the
become final and executory when in fact it State.
had not.
Later the SolGen filed for the Sec. 101: All actions for reversion to
government a complaint for annulment, the Gov’t. of lands of the public
cancellation of titles and for reversion on the domain shall be instituted in the
ground that the decision of the lower court proper courts in the name of the
adjudicating the lot to Alpuerto, its order for Republic.
the issuance of the decree of registration as
well as the OCT and all the TCTs derived
therefrom are all null and void and w/o legal (9) Quieting of Title
effect because the court had no jurisdiction
to allocate the subject land, which is Art. 476, Civil Code. Whenever
inalienable. there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein, by
RATIO :CA 141 explicitly states that timber reason of any instrument, record,
and mineral lands shall be governed by claim, encumbrance or proceeding
special laws. And the Forestry Law now which is apparently valid or effective
vests in the Director of Forestry the but is in truth and in fact invalid,
jurisdiction and authority over forest or ineffective, voidable, or
timberland. unenforceable, and may be prejudicial
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 87
to said title, an action may be brought an action to remove a cloud from title can
to remove such cloud or to quiet the only be invoked by a complainant when he
title. is in possession. One who claims property
An action may also be brought which is in the possession of another must,
to prevent a cloud from being cast it seems, invoke his remedy within the
upon title to real property or any statutory period.
interest therein.
Petitioners may wait until their
Art. 477, Civil Code. Plaintiff must possession is disturbed or their title is
have legal or equitable title to the attacked before they may take steps to
land; but not necessarily possession. vindicate their right. The statute of limitation
is not available as a defense to an action to
Sec. 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court. An remove a cloud from title over property in
action for the reformation of an possession of the petitioners.
instrument, to quiet title to real
property or remove clouds therefrom, It is not necessary that the person
or to consolidate ownership under Art. seeking to quiet his title is the registered
1607 of the Civil Code, may be owner of the property in question. "Title" to
brought under this Rule. property does not necessarily mean the
original transfer certificate of title. It can
connote acquisitive prescription by
REALTY SALES ENTERPRISES V. IAC, possession in the concept of an owner
154 SCRA 328 (1987) thereof. One who has an equitable right or
interest in the property may also file an
action to quiet title under the law.
Suits to quiet title are not technically
suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking,
in personam, but being against the person in TAN V. VALDEHUEZA,
respect of the res, these proceedings are 66 SCRA 61 (1975)
characterized as quasi in rem. The judgment
in such proceedings is conclusive only Relying on Section 3 of Rule 17 of
between the parties. the Rules of Court which pertinently
provides that a dismissal for failure to
MAMADSUL V. MOSON, prosecute "shall have the effect of an
190 SCRA 82 (1990) adjudication upon the merits," the
Valdehuezas submit that the dismissal of
civil case 2002 operated, upon the principle
An action to quiet title is
of res judicata, as a bar to the first cause of
imprescriptible if the plaintiffs are in
action in civil case 2574. This contention is
possession of the property. The right of a
untenable as the causes of action in the two
plaintiff to have his title to land quieted, as
cases are not identical. Case 2002 was for
against one who is asserting some adverse
injunction against the entry into and the
claim or lien thereon, is not barred while the
gathering of nuts from the land, while case
plaintiff or his grantors remain in actual
2574 seeks to "remove any doubt or cloud
possession of the land, claiming to be
of the plaintiff's ownership . . ." with a prayer
owners thereof, the reason for this rule
for declaration of ownership and recovery of
being that while the owner in fee continues
possession.
liable to an action, proceeding, or suit upon
Applying the test of absence of
the adverse claim, he has a continuing right
inconsistency between prior and subsequent
to the aid of a court of equity in his favor to
judgments the failure of Tan, in case 2002,
ascertain and determine the nature of such
to secure an injunction against the
claim and its effect on his title, or to assert
Valdehuezas to prevent them from entering
any superior equity in his favor. He may wait
the land and gathering nuts is not
until his possession is disturbed or his title is
inconsistent with her being adjudged, in
attacked before taking steps to vindicate his
Case 2574, as owner of the land with right to
right. But the role that the statute of
recover possession thereof. Case 2002
limitations is not available as a defense to
involved only the possession of the land and
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 88
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 89
to the court. They are in this respect as “Petitioners insist that the duty of the
officials of the court and not as respondent land registratoin officials to
administrative officials, and their act is the
act of the court. They are in specifically
called upon to “extend assistance to courts issue the decree is purely ministerial. It
in ordinary and cadastral land registration is ministerial in the sense that they act
proceedings”. under the orders of the court and the
RAMOS V. RODRIGUEZ, decree must be in conformity with the
244 SCRA 418 (1995) decision of the court and with the data
found in the record, and they have no
Ramos applied for the registration of discretion in the matter. However, if they
a parcel of land. After issuing an order of are in doubt upon any point in relation to
general default the judge rendered decision the preparation and issuance of the
adjudicating said lot to the petitioners; decree, it is their duty to refer the matter
ordered issuance of decree and directed to the court. They are in this respect as
NLTDRA to prepare the decree and officials of the court and not as
certificate of registration. administrative officials, and their act is
NLTDRA however recommended the act of the court. They are in
that the order be set aside because the said specifically called upon to “extend
subject lot is already covered by a TCT. The assistance to courts in ordinary and
court opined that it cannot set aside its cadastral land registration proceedings”.
decision on the basis of the report after the
finality of its decision. It added that the In the case at bar, the LRA is not
proper remedy of the government was an legally obligated to follow the court’s order
action for annulment of judgment. Later because the subject land sought to be
however the court set aside its order and registered was found to be already decreed
denied petitioner’s application for and titled under the Payatas Estate.
registration. The court noted that the subject The one-year period stated in Sec.
lot is already covered by an existing TCT 32 of PD 1529 within which a petition to
and that no final decree has yet been issued reopen and review the decree of registration
by the LRA. is described in Sec. 31 of the said PD which
Petitioner assailed this decision on decree is prepared and issued by the
the principle of finality of judgments. Commissioner of Land Registration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 90
Merely confirms a pre-existing title to the heirs of Tomasa. All the three parties
(Ponce de Leon v. RFC); does not appealed.
establish time of acquisition of the
property Issues: WON the TC erred in voiding the
sale to the RFC of the PQUE lot, upon the
Transfer Certificate of Title ground that the same formed part of the
conjugal partnership of the Soriano spouses.
Subsequent certificate of title that may
be issued by the Register of Deeds
Held/ Ratio Decidendi : The TC erred in
pursuant to any voluntary or applying the said presumption. The sale to
involuntary instrument relating to the RFC is valid.
same land It appears that the property was
registered in the name of “Francisco Soriano
See Secs. 39 – 50, PD 1529 married to Tomasa Rodriguez,” and that
based on this fact alone, the TC presumed
that it belongs to the conjugal partnership.
PONCE DE LEON VS. REHABILITATION The TC erred in applying the said
FINANCE CORP., presumption.
36 SCRA 289 (1976) We should not overlook the fact that
the title to said property was not a transfer
Facts: Ponce procured an industrial loan certificate of title, but an original one, issued
from RFC in 1951. As security, Ponce in accordance with a decree which, pursuant
mortgaged a parcel of land in Paranaque to law, merely confirms a pre-existing title.
which was registered in the name of Said OCT does not establish, therefore, the
Francisco Soriano (FS) – OCT No. 8094 – time of acquisition of the PQUE property by
married to Tomas Rodriguez. At the time of the registered owner thereof.
signing of the mortgage deed, Tomasa was
already dead leaving her heirs, her children. REYES VS. REYES,
None of Tomasa’s children signed the 17 SCRA 1099 (1966)
mortgage deed.
Ponce failed to pay the Facts: Mateo, Juan and Francisco Reyes
amortizations due. RFC took steps to extra- are the registered owners of several parcels
judicially foreclose the mortgaged of land covered by OCT Nos. 22161 and
properties. Upon foreclosure, RFC 8066. In 1962, Mateo and Juan filed a
purchased the Paranaque lot. motion for the issuance of writs of
Prior to the expiration of the one- possession over all the lots against Raval.
year period redemption period, FS offered to Raval admitted that he was in possession of
repurchase the PQUE lot for P14,000, but 22161 but not of 8066, although he is
the bank (RFC) rejected the offer. RFC entitled to the possession of both, having
scheduled the public sale of the lot. acquired by way of absolute sale from
In 1956, Ponce filed the present Francisco the latter’s undivided 1/3 interest
action questioning the validity of the sheriff’s to these discputed lots.
foreclosure sale, and requesting a writ of P.I. The CFI issued the writes of
to restrain RFC from carrying out its possession. Raval did not appeal.
scheduled sale. Subsequently, petitioners filed an action to
The Sorianos filed a 3rd party recover the products of the disputed land
complaint contending that the mortgage was against Raval. Raval filed a counter-claim
void insofar as FS is concerned for lack of for partition of the said lots, alleging that he
consideration; and that the PQUE lot is the co-owner of the properties.
belonged to the conjugal property, and that Issues: Who between the petitioners or
Tomasa was already dead at the time… and respondent has a better right to the
the heirs who have inherited it have not possession or custody of the disputed
signed the mortgage contract. owners’ duplicate of certificates of title?
The TC dismissed Ponce’s
complaint, and declared the mortgage of 1/2 Held/ Ratio Decidendi : Petitioners are
of the PQUE lot of void because it belongs entitled to the possession.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 91
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 92
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 93
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 94
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 95
never be a part of Lot 6 because between thereof was made. Under Sec 38, a person
the two lots there exists a big river. It was allegedly defrauded has a year to file a
also alleged that Lot 6 was situated within case. Thus, even assuming arguendo that
the jurisdiction of Dolores, Quezon while Lot there was actual or positive fraud in securing
12 was situated within the jurisdiction of the title, the defendants-petitioners are now
Candelaria, Quezon. As special defenses, barred from questioning the same.
defendants-petitioners alleged that they
acquired Lot 12 partly by purchase and (2) No. As the land in registration was
partly by inheritance; that they have title covered by the Torrens System and duly
granted by the Spanish government; that the registered, the decree of registration can no
lot was adjudicated to them by CFI of longer be impugned on the ground of fraud,
Tayabas; that they have declared the land error or lack of notice, AFTER the lapse of
for tax purposes; that they have cleared, one year.
cultivated and planted on these lands; that Indeed, it is an established rule that
plaintiffs were never the owners of this land, one cannot acquire title to a registered land
and even if a portion thereof was included in by prescription or adverse title when
their title, it was done thru fraud and deceit covered by a Torrens tile. Adverse,
by making it appear in the application and in notorious, continuous possession under
the notices that said Lot 6 belonged to them claim of ownership for the period fixed by
and is within the jurisdiction of Dolores, the law is ineffective against a Torrens title
Quezon. and it is likewise settled that the right to
The Lower Court found that Lot 12 secure possession under a decree of
is part of Lot 6 and was accordingly registration does not prescribe (Tuason
adjudicated to plaintiffs. This is confirmed Case)
by the Commissioner’s Report as As regards equitable doctrine of
manifested by the Chief Surveyor. Also, it laches, it will NOT apply as against the
was pointed out that defendant knew that registered owners. The reliance on Mejia de
the land is within Lot 6 and covered by a title Lucas Case was misplaced because the
in favor of plaintiffs since 1924 -- so, when circumstance attendant in that case was not
he filed his opposition, he did not act in good present in this case. The 37-year
faith and did not occupy the land for 30 possession in the case cited and intervening
years (so no prescription). Indeed, no title to rights of third persons who may be
registered land may be acquired by prejudiced due to series of transfers effected
prescription or adverse possession. The CA allows the application of laches. But this
affirmed this finding. Hence, this petition. was not the case herein.
Issues: WON there was fraud or Petitioners, however did not act in bad
misrepresentation in the procurement of the faith in occupying the land in question
TCT (finding of fact), and possession in bad
WON the case is barred by statute faith only started in 1959 when judicial
of limitations or by laches summons were served. As such, in the
interest of justice, petitioners are entitled
Held/ Ratio Decidendi: Decision affirmed, to accounting and reimbursement of
with modification necessary and useful expenses during
its occupation of the land in good faith.
(1) No. The existence of actual or positive
fraud is a question of fact, and respondent
court having ruled out the same, the SC has Collateral Attack
no basis to sustain the defendants-
petitioners’ contention. Lot 12 was clearly A certificate of title cannot be
found to be part and parcel of Lot 6, for subject to a collateral attack. It cannot be
which TCT was issued to plaintiffs- altered, modified or canceled except in a
respondents and registered in 1941. direct proceeding in accordance with law.
Likewise, the decree of registration has long (Sec. 48, PD 1529)
become final, absent a showing that the
same was questioned within one year after
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 96
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 97
jurisdiction for the reopening of the In 1979. Cayaba applied for registration in
proceedings because there was no requisite his name. Petitioners filed opposition. MTD
publication. Both were denied. MFR. (ground: prior judgment). Granted.
Denied. Present petition. Opposition was dismissed. Instant petition.
ISSUE: was there Jurisdiction? ISSUE: WON dismissal was proper. – YES.
RATIO: The petition to reopen cadastral RATIO: It must be noted that the opposition
proceedings is a matter of right granted by partakes of the nature of an answer with a
RA 931 as long as it is filed within due time. counterclaim. In ordinary civil cases, the
In RA 931, parties are given a period of 10 counterclaim would be considered a
years to file a petition for reopening the complaint, this time with the original
proceedings in case there was failure to file defendant becoming the plaintiff. The
a claim in the first proceedings. However, original plaintiff, who becomes defendant in
the petition must be filed in the same the counterclaim may either then answer the
cadastral proceedings, with the same counterclaim or be declared in default, or
procedures. Thus, it is necessary that may file a motion to dismiss the same. The
notice be given to those persons who claim latter choice was what respondent Cayaba
an adverse interest in the land sought to be opted for. Although such situation rarely, if
registered, as well as to the general public, ever, happens in land registration cases, the
by publishing such notice in 2 successive irregularity that petitioners complain of
issues of the OG, and posting it in a stems basically from the infrequent use of a
conspicuous place in the land to be motion to dismiss in land registration cases,
surveyed, as well as in the municipal and not from it being unauthorized.
building.
There was, in fact, res judicata. With respect
Publication is one of the essential bases of to the subject matter, there can be no
the court’s jurisdiction. question that the land sought to be
recovered by petitioners are the very same
parcels of land being sought to be registered
VALISNO VS PLAN in Cayaba's and Noriega's names. While the
complaint in the first action is captioned for
FACTS: In 1964, petitioner-spouses recovery of possession, the allegations and
Flordeliza and Valisno purchased 2 parcels the prayer for relief therein raise the issue of
of land from the legal heirs of Agapito ownership, In effect, it is in the nature of an
Blanco. They declared the two parcels in action reinvidicatoria. The second case is for
their name for taxation purposes and registration of title. Consequently, between
exercised exclusive possession thereof in the two cases there is identity of causes of
the concept of owners by installing a action because in action reinvidicatoria,
caretaker (Fermin Lozano). In 1968, private possession is sought on the basis of
respondent Cayaba ousted Lozano from the ownership and the same is true in
land. He claims ownership by virtue of a registration cases. Registration of title in
deed of sale in his favor. He then erected a one's name is based on ownership. In both
6-door apartment on the land. Petitioner cases, the plaintiff and the applicant seek to
filed complaint for recovery of possession. exclude other persons from ownership of the
Resolved in favor of petitioners. CA land in question. The only difference is that
reversed the decision and dismissed in the former case, the exclusion is directed
complaint, ruling that the land occupied by against particular persons, while in the latter
Cayaba has not been successfully identified proceedings, the exclusion is directed
with the land described in the complaint. CA against the whole world. Nonetheless, the
also ruled that being the actual possessor of cause of action remains the same.
the property, Cayaba possesses it with a just
title. CA gives more weight to Cayaba’s Abellera vs. Farol ruled that "while in a
evidence. cadastral case, res judicata is available
to a claimant in order to defeat the
alleged rights of another claimant,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 98
nevertheless, prior judgment can not be the same corrected? And besides, Decree
set up in a motion to dismiss." This 1425 covers land which is 4 kms. away from
ruling is now abandoned; reversed by the land being applied for. So if there was no
this case. valid decree of registration, Ortigas’ TCTs
cannot be valid.
Ortigas brought the case to the CA
DURAN VS. OLIVA, on certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and
3 SCRA 154 (1961) the CA reversed the TC decision and
dismissed the case. The CA believed
Facts: (SUPRA) Ortigas’ TCTs are actually derived from OCT
351, the latter being issued pursuant to
Held: By express provision of Rule 132 of Decree 1425 and that since OCT 351 is a
the ROC, the rules contained therein apply copy of Decree 1425, even though a copy of
to land registration and cadastral cases in Decree 1425 cannot be presented in court
suppletory character and whenever does not mean Decree 1425 was not issued
practicable and convenient. The LRA does and OCT 351 would suffice to show that a
not provide for a pleading similar or decree of registration was made. So
corresponding to a motion to dismiss. As a according to the CA, as far as Lots 7 and 8
motion to dismiss is necessary for the are concerned Ortigas’ TCTs refer to OCT
expeditious termination of land registration 351 and the CA ordered that the mistake in
cases, said motion can be availed of by the the TCTs be corrected.
parties.
The primary and fundamental Issue: WON Ortigas’ TCTs are valid despite
purpose of the Torrens System of the absence of a supporting decree of
registration is to finally settle the titles to registration.
land and put to stop any question of legality
of title thereto. Pursuant to this purpose, a Held: No. CA judgment set aside.
homestead patent once registered under the
LRA cannot be the subject matter of a Ratio: The evidence presented by Ortigas
cadastral proceeding, and any title issued to prove the existence of a decree of
thereon is null and void. registration is merely secondary (i.e. the
plan, testimony of surveyor and OCT 351).
Ortigas must satisfy requisites to justify
Hearing, judgment and Decree (Sec. admission of secondary evidence (1.
Execution 2. Lost or destroyed or
38)
possession of adverse party). Ortigas’
evidence should not have been admitted in
WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION the first place.
INC., (WIDORA) VS. CA, ORTIGAS & CO., A ground for dismissal based on
201 SCRA 165 (1991) disputed facts (WON the TCT’s of Ortigas
was supported by a decree of registration
Facts: Widora filed an application for specifically by Decree 1425) is not a ground
registration of a land they acquired from the for dismissal. The resolution of this
heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. controversy calls for a full-blown trial to
Molina and Ortigas & Co. separately afford the parties a day in court.
opposed claiming ownership. Ortigas filed a An order denying a motion to
motion to dismiss alleging that the court had dismiss is merely interlocutory thus not
no jurisdiction, the land being applied for proper for the extraordinary writ of
having been already registered under the prohibition. Interlocutory orders cannot be
Torrens System (TS). MTD denied and the reviewed by the CA until the LC shall have
case was set for hearing. TC believes decided the merit of the case.
Ortigas’ TCTs were derived form OCT 337, The mistakes that appear in Ortigas’
19, 336, 334 (as it appears on its face) TCTs cannot be corrected except by order of
pursuant to Decree 1425, NOT OCT 351 as the court in a petition filed for the purpose
claimed by Ortigas. If it were really derived and entitled in the original case in which the
from OCT 351 then why didn’t Ortigas have decree of registration was entered. The
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 99
court is not authorized to alter or correct a petitioners was lost by prescription and that
certificate of title if it would mean the they were guilty of laches. TC ORDERED
reopening of the decree of registration THE NECESSARY CORRECTION OF THE
beyond the period allowed by law. TECHINICAL DESCRIPTION TO MAKE IT
Respondent court committed a procedural CONFORM TO THE CORRECT AREA. CA
lapse. affirmed.
The rule that a land registration
court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land Issue: WON the courts have the authority
already covered by certificate of Title applies to order the necessary corrections of an
only where there exists no serious erroneous technical description and make it
controversy as to the certificate’s conform to the correct area.
authenticity vis-a-vis the land covered
therein. Held: Yes. Petition dismissed. Decision
affirmed.
GABRIEL VS. CA, PETRITA PASCUAL, Ratio: In cadastral cases, jurisdiction of the
RUDYARDO SANTIAGO, court over lands already registered is limited
159 SCRA 461 (1988) to the necessary correction of technical
errors in the description of lands, provided
Facts: A survey was made for Santiago such corrections do not impair the
Quimson. Land was registered under his substantial rights of the registered owner,
name and an OCT was issued by the and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to
Registry of Deeds. Subsequently a deprive a registered owner of his title. The
cadastral survey (Orani survey) was court also has the power to determine the
conducted which resulted in an increase in priority of overlapping or over-laying
the land. The Cadastral court confirmed registered title. This power is necessary for
Quimson’s title. The lot was subdivided and a complete settlement of the title to the land,
subsequently acquired by Eligio Naval. which is the express purpose of cadastral
Potenciano Gabriel had a parcel of land proceedings. Furthermore, in the case at
surveyed (2,792,712 sq m designated as bar, it was not as if the court reopened or set
Psu 9742) and later it was amended to aside a final decree. Therefore the action of
exclude portions of land owned by Quimson. the lower court in correcting the error in the
OCT 1264 with a reduced area (2,436,280 technical description appearing in Psu 9742
sq m) was issued to Gabriel. Another is well within its jurisdiction.
cadastral survey was conducted (Hermosa The fact that Gabriel did not own the
survey) and Gabriel’s lot covered by Psu- land is shown by the Hermose and Orani
9742 became Lot No. 557 with a further Cadastre, and by the behavior of Gabriel
reduced area (2,096,433 sq m) but no new himself (even after discovering occupation
certificate of title was issued such that the he allowed Naval to use and occupy the
OCT 1264 continued to subsist with an area land). The claim that the land was loaned
of 2,436,280 sq m. Gabriel passed away was supported by mere oral evidence which
and his heirs (petitioners) divided the land the SC believes to be insufficient to defeat
according to Psu 9742 under OCT 1264 title and possession of registered owners.
(includes land owned by Naval). Petitioners For failure to prosecute their claims
filed a complaint against Pascual and for 20 years, petitioners have lost by laches
Santiago (administrators of Naval estate) their right to recover their property.
claiming that respondents usurped the land
and that the land was merely loaned to the
respondents for dike and water control REPUBLIC AND DIR. OF LANDS VS.
purposes of the latter’s fishpond. The TC JUDGE ESTENZO
dismissed the complaint on the ground that 158 SCRA 282 (1988)
the land was in the possession of Naval in
the concept of an owner and the petitioner’s Facts: Oct. 31, 1940 Cadastral Court
claim that the land was loaned to Naval was declared Lot No. 8423 of the Ormoc
not supported by sufficient evidence. Cadastral as public land. 32 years later (Jan
Further the TC found that the right of 12, 1972) spouses Adolfo filed a petition to
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 100
re-open the Oct. 31, 1940 decision. Spouses I. Lost or Destroyed Certificates
claimed ownership by virtue of having (Sec.109, PD 1529)
purchased it and as evidenced by a deed of
quitclaim and confirmation dated August 28, In case of loss or theft of an owner’s
1969, likewise alleging that due to accident, duplicate certificate of title
mistake, and excusable neglect of the Due notice under oath is required to
previous claimant, the land was declared
be sent to Reg. of Deeds where land
public. Director of Lands appeared as
is situated as soon as loss or theft is
oppositor. Judge adjudicated Lot No. 8423
in favor of spouses. Rep. and Dir. Appeals discovered
by certiorari. Petitioner claims spouses’ Petition to be filed by registered owner
petition is barred by the expiration of the or other person in interest
period for reopening of cadastral Notice and hearing required
proceedings under RA 931 (Dec. 31, 1968).
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 101
SERRA V. CA,
195 SCRA 482 REPUBLIC V CA AND YUPANGCO,
OCTOBER 26, 1999
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE; PURPOSE. Issue: The question for decision in this
— The purpose of the reconstitution of any case is whether in a proceeding for the
document, book or record is to have the issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate
same reproduced, after observing the of title, the Solicitor General is required to be
procedure prescribed by law in the same notified, such that failure to give such notice
form they were when the loss or destruction would render the proceedings void.
occurred. The reconstitution of certificates of
title should be made, as just stated, in the Held: Nothing in the law requires that the
same form and exactly as they were at the Office of the Solicitor General be notified
time they were lost or destroyed. A person and heard in proceeding for the issuance of
who seeks a reconstitution of a certificate of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title. In
title over a property he does not actually contrast, §23 of the same law(PD 1529),
possess cannot, by a mere motion for the involving original registration proceedings,
issuance of a writ of possession, which is specifically mentions the Solicitor General
summary in nature, deprive the actual as among those who must be notified of the
occupants of possession thereof. petition. Similarly, §36 provides that the
Possession and/or ownership of the property petition for registration in cadastral
should be threshed out in a separate proceedings must be filed by the Solicitor
proceeding General, in behalf of the Director of Lands.
It is only now that the Solicitor
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE; ACTUAL General is claiming the right to be notified of
AND PERSONAL NOTICE TO ACTUAL proceedings for the issuance of the owner’s
POSSESSORS, INDISPENSABLE. — duplicate certificate of title. Indeed, the only
Private respondents argue that the herein basis for such claim is that the Office of the
petitioners are bound by the order granting Solicitor General represents the government
reconstitution because the reconstitution in land registration and related proceedings.
proceedings was heard after notices were Even so, however, the request for
sent to alleged boundary owners and the representation should have come from the
petition was published in the Official Registrar of Deeds of Makati who was the
Gazette. However, the petitioner who were proper party to the case.
in actual possession of the properties were
not notified. Notice by publication is not Considering that the law does not
sufficient as regards actual possessors of impose such notice requirement in
the property. In the case of Alabang proceedings for the issuance of a new
Development v. Valenzuela, No. 54094, owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the lack
August 30, 1982, 116 SCRA 277, We held of notice to the Solicitor General, as counsel
that in petitions for reconstitution of titles, for the Registrar of Deeds, was at most only
actual owners and possessors of the lands a formal and not a jurisdictional defect. M
involved must be duly served with actual
and personal notice of the petition.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 102
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 103
f) Any other document (similar to the Upon 15 days from receipt by the
documents previously enumerated) Register of Deeds and by the
which, in the judgment of the court, Administrator of the Land Registration
is a sufficient and proper basis for Authority of a notice of such order or
reconstitution. judgment without any appeal having been
filed by any of such officials. (Sec. 110,
II) For Transfer Certificate of Title PD 1529, as amended by RA 6732)
In the following order:
What is the force and effect of a
a) The same as sources a, b and c for
fraudulently reconstituted title?
reconstitution of original CT
c) The same as sources (e) and (f) for Sec. 10 of RA 6732 provides that any
reconstitution of original CT interested party who by fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence (FAME;
Can liens and encumbrances be note, these are the same grounds for a
reconstituted? motion for new trial as well as a petition
for relief from judgment) has been
YES. The sources for such unjustly deprived or prevented from taking
reconstitution are provided under Sec. 4 of part in the proceedings may file a petition
RA 26. Also see Sec. 8-9 of the same in the proper court to set aside the
law. decision and to reopen the proceedings.
The petition must be verified and
Who may file a petition for filed within 60 days after the petitioner
reconstitution? learns of the decision but not more than 6
months from the promulgation thereof.
A petition for reconstitution may be filed (This is the same as a petition for relief
with the RTC by: from judgment.)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 104
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 105
jurisdiction of the cadastral Court to register Director of Lands, the Office of the Solicitor
under the Torrens System. General, the National Land Titles and Deeds
The inaction or neglect of Registration Administration (NLTDRA),
government agencies cannot operate to bar Salome Castillo, and Jose Castillo.
the action by the State as it cannot be
estopped by the mistake or error of its 4. November 3, 1988 - the petitioner caused
officials or agents. The State as a persona in to be marked as Exhibit G the certificate of
law is the juridical entity, which is the source publication issued by the Director of the
of any asserted right to ownership in land National Printing Office stating that the order
under basic Constitutional precepts, and is of the court dated April 22, 1988 was
charged with the conversion of such published in Volume 84, Nos. 21 and 22,
patrimony. May 23 and May 30, 1988 issues of the
Official Gazette and that the May 30, 1988
issue was released for circulation on
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF October 3, 1988. The May 23 and May 30
MALABON VS. THE HONORABLE issues of the Official Gazette were also
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALABON, marked as Exhibits B-1 and B-2,
181 SCRA 788 respectively.
1. March 17, 1988 - a Deed of Absolute 5. The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City
Sale of a property covered by TCT No. R- testified that the original TCT No. R-3899
3899 in the name of Salome Castillo in favor had been missing from the files of his office
of Jose M. Castillo, was presented to the since 1981; that the Deed of Sale of the
Register of Deeds in Caloocan City for property of Salome Castillo in favor of Jose
registration. It could not be given due course Castillo was presented for registration but it
because the original of said TCT in the could not be registered because the original
Registry of Deeds was missing. of TCT No. R-3899 could not be found; and
that he was authorized by the administrator
2. As the missing title covered a parcel of of the NLTDRA to file a petition for
land in Malabon, Atty. Gaudencio Cena, the reconstitution of the lost original copy of TCT
Register of Deeds for Malabon, filed on April No. R-3899.
12, 1988 in the Regional Trial Court of
Malabon, a verified petition for reconstitution 6. The Regional Trial Court in Malabon
of the original of TCT No. R-3899 under dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction
Rep. Act No. 26, which was given due because the notice of the petition was not
course on April 22, 1988. The court’s order published in the Official Gazette "at least
setting it for hearing on August 17, 1988 was thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing"
ordered to be published in two (2) (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 26) which had been set on
consecutive issues of the Official Gazette as August 17, 1988. The May 23 and May 30
provided in Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26. issues of the Official Gazette were actually
released for circulation on October 3, 1988,
3. At the hearing for the purpose of or forty-seven (47) days after the scheduled
establishing the jurisdictional requirement of hearing of the petition.
publication of the notice of the hearing of the
petition, the petitioner submitted the 7. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26
following exhibits: provides:
a) a certification dated August 10,
1988, of the Director of the National Printing "Sec. 9. A registered owner desiring to
Office certifying that the order dated April 22, have his reconstituted certificate of title
1988 was included in Volume 84, Nos. 21 freed from the encumbrance mentioned
and 22, May 23 and May 30, 1988 issues of in section seven of this Act, may file a
the Official Gazette; petition to that end with the proper
b) the sheriffs certificate of posting; Court of First Instance, giving his
and reason or reasons therefor. A similar
c) the registry return receipts for the petition may, likewise, be filed by a
copies of the notices which were sent to the mortgagee, lessee or other lien holder
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 106
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 107
the American Oxygen and Acetylene Further, petitioner did not raise the issue of
Company. While this case was pending, lack of jurisdiction in the earlier case; thus,
Carlos V. Stilianopulos died. As a he was guilty of laches.
consequence, TCT No. T-1427 which was
registered under his name was cancelled, ISSUES: (1) WON the prescriptive period
and TCT No. 13448 was issued in the name for extrinsic fraud has [not] lapsed" and
of his son, petitioner herein, on July 12,
1974. (2) WON the reconstitution court
had no jurisdiction and "petitioner is [not]
4. February 29, 1984 - the trial court guilty of laches." In addition, the Court will
rendered its Decision, which upheld the pass upon the CA holding that this case is
validity of TCT No. 13448 and its superiority also barred by res judicata.
to OCT No. 665. Thus, Stilianopulos was
declared the lawful owner of the disputed HELD: The Petition has no merit.
property, Lot 1, Psd-3261.
For fraud to become a basis for
5. The CA reversed the trial court and ruled annulment of judgment, it has to be
in favor of the City. Stilianopulos’ recourse to extrinsic or actual. It is intrinsic when the
this Court was dismissed in a Minute fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved
Resolution promulgated on August 17, 1988, in the original action or where the acts
12 on the ground that the issue raised was constituting the fraud were or could have
factual in nature. been litigated. It is extrinsic or collateral
when a litigant commits acts outside of the
6. Stilianopulos filed an action for the trial which prevents a party from having a
cancellation of OCT No. 665, which the trial real contest, or from presenting all of his
court subsequently dismissed on August 15, case such that there is no fair submission of
1989 on the ground of res judicata. On the controversy. Our examination of the
appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court, facts shows that, indeed, respondent failed
reasoning that petitioner’s action was "an (1) to state in its Petition for Reconstitution
action for annulment of the order" of the that Lot 1 was occupied and possessed by
reconstitution of OCT No. 665 and was petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest and (2)
therefore not cognizable by the trial court. to give him notice of such proceedings.
Deliberately failing to notify a party entitled
7. June 13, 1994 - Stilianopulos again filed to notice constitutes extrinsic fraud.
before the CA a new action for annulment of Although the CA and the respondent
the September 16, 1964 Order based on impliedly admitted the presence of extrinsic
three grounds: "(1) that the Respondent City fraud, both contend, however, that the
of Legaspi procured OCT No. 665 prescriptive period for filing an action based
fraudulently; (2) that the original certificate thereon had already run out on the
of title which was judicially reconstituted was petitioner. The appellate court said: "If the
non-existent: and (3) that the court which ground for the annulment is extrinsic fraud,
ordered the reconstitution lacked the action has to be filed within four (4)
jurisdiction." years from the time the fraud is discovered
pursuant to the provisions of Article 1891 of
8. The Court of Appeals ruled that "the the Civil Code. . .”
prescriptive period for extrinsic fraud has Petitioner’s arguments are
lapsed [and] the petitioner is likewise guilty untenable. He could and should have raised
of laches in the filing of this case for the issue of extrinsic fraud in the action for
annulment." quieting of title. It was then that he became
aware of the reconstituted title in the name
Res judicata had also set in against of respondent. A simple check on the
petitioner, as there was an identity of parties records of the reconstitution proceedings
and causes of action — ownership and would have revealed that it was conducted
possession of the lot covered by OCT No. without notice to the petitioner’s father.
665 — between the earlier case for quieting Thus, we find no sufficient
of title and his Petition for Annulment. explanation why March 24, 1988 should be
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 108
reckoned as the date when the prescriptive other actions instead. Laches is the failure
period should begin. Simply unacceptable is or neglect, for an unreasonable or
the contention that petitioner’s counsel unexplained length of time, to do that which
discovered the extrinsic fraud "shortly after by exercising due diligence could or should
March 24, 1988" only. Granting arguendo have been done earlier, warranting the
that the prescriptive period should begin presumption that the right holder has
when petitioner’s counsel read the Land abandoned that right or declined to assert it.
Registration Commission Report, the This inaction or neglect to assert a right
"discovery" should have been made earlier, converts a valid claim into a stale demand.
because the Report had been made Laches prevents a litigant from raising the
available to the said counsel when it was issue of lack of jurisdiction. True, petitioner
attached to the respondent’s Appeal Brief on filed the annulment Complaint right after the
April 5, 1986, or at the latest, when the CA dismissal of the cancellation-of-title case,
Decision was promulgated on October 16, but it is equally true that it was filed only
1987. There was absolutely no excuse why after the quieting-of-title case had been
petitioner had to wait until the finality of the decided in favor of the respondent. By
Decision in the case for quieting of title, participating in the quieting-of-title case and
before raising the issue of extrinsic fraud in arguing therein his defenses against the
order to annul the Decision in the legality of the title of the respondent in order
reconstitution proceedings. Clearly, the facts to establish his rights over the disputed
constituting the fraud should have been property, petitioner is deemed to have
known to petitioner’s predecessor-in- chosen this action over the annulment of the
interest, when the Petition to quiet the title reconstitution proceedings. Annulment of
was filed in 1970. the reconstitution proceedings was belatedly
It appears that the trial court had no resorted to only after the CA had reversed
jurisdiction. First, under Section 13 of RA 26, the trial court and upheld the reconstituted
the sending of notice to the occupant of the title of respondent. Laches bars a party from
land covered by the title sought to be invoking lack of jurisdiction for the first time
reconstituted is mandatory and jurisdictional. on appeal for the purpose of annulling
If no notice of the date of hearing of a everything done, with his active
reconstitution case is served on the participation, in the case below. It cannot be
possessor or anyone else having interest in said either that the application of laches
the property involved, the order of would work an injustice against petitioner,
reconstitution is null and void. Second, because he was given a fair chance in the
reconstitution of title is simply the reissuance quieting-of-title case to prove his ownership
of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly of the disputed lot.
lost or destroyed in its original form and Furthermore, by seeking the
condition. Thus, it arises from the loss or reexamination of the ownership of the
destruction of the owner’s copy of the disputed lot, petitioner accepted the
certificate. In the case at bar, the title to Lot jurisdiction of the court which heard the
1 was not lost or destroyed. It remained in action for quieting of title. A litigant cannot
the possession of the petitioner’s father and invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
was eventually passed on to him. If a affirmative relief and, after failing to obtain
certificate of title has not been lost but is in such relief, to repudiate or question that
fact in the possession of another person, same jurisdiction. Clearly, laches has
then the reconstituted title is void and the attached and barred the petitioner’s right to
court that rendered the Decision had no file an action for annulment.
jurisdiction. We are convinced that indeed res
However, the CA ruled that the judicata has already set in. This conclusion
delay of more than twenty years since is the most persuasive argument raised by
petitioner learned of the reconstituted title the appellate court. The principle applies
was unreasonable, giving rise to the when the following elements are present (1)
presumption that he had abandoned the a judgment has became final; (2) such
idea of seeking annulment of the judgment was rendered on the merits; (3)
proceedings on the ground of lack of the court that rendered it had jurisdiction
jurisdiction, and that he had opted to take over the subject matter and the parties; and
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 109
(4) there was identity of parties, subject of Deeds, but in no case shall the number
matter and causes of action between the of the lost or damaged titles be less than
previous and the subsequent action. There 500 as determined by the Administrator of
is identity of cause of action between a case the Land Registration Authority. (Sec. 110,
for annulment of title and one for annulment PD 1529, as amended by RA 6732)
of judgment. Causes of action are identical
when there is an identity in the facts What are the source documents on
essential to the maintenance of the two which administrative reconstitution
actions, or where the same evidence will
may be based?
sustain both actions. If the same facts or
evidence can sustain either, the two actions
are considered the same so that the (1) The owner's duplicate of the
judgment in one is a bar to the other. The certificate of title; (Sec. 2a, RA
underlying objectives or reliefs sought in 26)
both the quieting-of-title and the annulment-
of-title cases are essentially the same — (2) The co-owner's mortgagee's, or
adjudication of the ownership of the disputed lessee's duplicate of the
lot and nullification of one of the two certificate of title; (Sec. 2b, RA
certificates of title. Thus, it becomes readily 26)
apparent that the same evidence or set of
facts as those considered in the quieting-of- (3) For liens and other
title case would also be used in this Petition. encumbrances affecting the
The difference in form and nature of the two destroyed or lost CT, the
actions is immaterial and is not a reason to annotations or memoranda
exempt petitioner from the effects of res appearing on the owner's co-
judicata. The philosophy behind this rule owner's mortgagee's or lessee's
prohibits the parties from litigating the same duplicate. (Sec. 4a, RA 26)
issue more than once. When a right or fact
has been judicially tried and determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction or an
What are the requirements for
opportunity for such trial has been given, the
judgment of the court, as long as it remains
administrative reconstitution?
unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
parties and those in privity with them. Verily, 1. Owner’s duplicate copy of the
there should be an end to litigation by the OCT or TCT and 3 clear xerox
same parties and their privies over a copies. If the owner’s duplicate is
subject, once it is fully and fairly adjudicated. lost or unavailable, then the co-
owner’s duplicate of title and 3
clear/legible xerox copies may be
Administrative Reconstitution submitted;
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 110
(1) The registered owner, his assigns, or 2. The defendants denied that Decreto No.
other persons having an interest in 6145 and TCT No. 23377 were false and
the property files a petition with the spurious. They consistently claimed (from
Register of Deeds, complying with the the trial court up to this Court) that the parcel
requirements imposed by Sec. 5 of of land covered by the questioned document
RA 26. is a portion of the vast Hacienda de Angono
owned by their predecessor-in-interest, Don
(2) If the Register of Deeds has no valid Buenaventura Guido y Sta. Ana; that Don
Buenaventura Guido left a portion of the
reason to deny the petition, he/she
hacienda (porcion del plano 11-627) to his
shall reconstitute the certificate of title
heirs, Francisco and Hermogenes Guido;
accordingly. that the subject matter of the petition is only
a portion of plano 11-827, and covered by
Decreto No. 6145, issued on September 1,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. 1911 in the name of the heirs of
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND Buenaventura Guido y Sta. Ana (Francisco
ANTONINA GUIDO, 204 SCRA 160 and Hermogenes Guido); that on June 12,
1912, OCT No. 633 was issued on the basis
FACTS: of Decreto No. 6145; that the original title
was subsequently cancelled and in lieu
1. August 22, 1979 – The RP, represented thereof, TCT No. 23377 was issued on May
by the SolGen, filed a complaint for 12, 1933; that the heirs of Francisco and
declaration of nullity of Decreto No. 6146, Hermogenes Guido adjudicated among
the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 2337 themselves the estate left by their
and all titles derived from said decree; and predecessors and transferred one-half
the declaration of the parcel of land covered portion thereof to Jose Rojas sometime in
by the decree as belonging to the state, 1942, as contained in an Extra-judicial
except so much thereof as had been validly Settlement of Estate with Quitclaim dated
disposed of to third persons. The complaint December 17, 1973.
alleged inter alia, that:
3. The parties, however, admit that on
"15. The alleged Decree August 20, 1974, the heirs of Buenaventura
No. 6146 issued on Guido, requested the then Land Registration
September 10, 1911 and the Commission (now Land Registration
alleged owner's copy of Authority) to issue the corresponding original
Transfer Certificate of Title certificate of title based on Decreto 6145,
No. 23377 issued on May which was denied on January 8, 1976.
12, 1933, both in the name
of Francisco and 4. March 29, 1976 - Alfredo Guido,
Hermogenes Guido, and representing the other heirs, filed a petition
which supposed owner's for reconstitution of TCT No. 23377 with the
duplicate was made the Registry of Deeds of Morong. The petition
basis of the administrative alleged that the original could not be located
reconstitution of TCT No. in the files of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal
(23377) RT-M-0002 on after he and his co-heirs sought the
March 29, 1976, or about 43 registration of their Extra-judicial Settlement
years later, are false, with Quitclaim dated December 17, 1973.
spurious and fabricated and The petition was supported by the
were never issued by virtue owner's duplicate copy of the title.
of judicial proceedings for
registration of land, either 5. The petition for administrative
under Act No. 496, as reconstitution of TCT No. 23377 was
amended, otherwise known granted and a reconstituted certificate of title
as the Land Registration [TCT (23377) RT-M-0002] was issued dated
Act, or any other law, . . ." March 29, 1976.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 111
8. The court a quo rendered judgment 4. The fact alone that the petition for
dismissing the complaint and declaring reconstitution was approved on the same
Decree No. 6145 and TCT No. 23377, day that it was filed did not render the
genuine and authentic. approval suspect. In administrative
reconstitution of a certificate of title
9. The decision of the trial court was supported by the owner's duplicate copy of
appealed by the Solicitor General to the the title, no other requisite was required
Court of Appeals which affirmed said under Section 6 of Republic Act 26 unlike
decision on July 12, 1988. in judicial reconstitution under Section 12 of
the same law. The Register of Deeds
ISSUES: It is the contention of petitioner correctly granted the reconstitution on the
that respondent Court of Appeals committed basis of private respondents owners'
serious errors in the assessment of the duplicate copy of TCT No. 23377.
evidence on record and acted with grave
abuse of discretion in concluding that the 5. We find no legal basis for the declaration
Republic failed to satisfy the requirements of of the questioned documents as valid only
preponderant proof in support of its theory. with respect to such portions of the property
not possessed and owned by bonafide
HELD: occupants with indefeasible registered titles
of ownership or with lengths of possession
1. In civil cases, the party having the burden which had ripened to ownership. Having
of proof must establish his case by a been found valid and genuine, Decreto No.
preponderance of evidence. The general 6145 therefore, possessed all the attributes
rule in civil cases is that a party having the of a decree of registration. Section 31 of the
burden of proof of an essential fact must Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529),
produce a preponderance of evidence second paragraph provides:.
thereon. By preponderance of evidence is “The decree of registration
meant simply evidence which is of greater shall bind the land and quiet
weight, or more convincing than that which title thereto, subject only to
is offered in opposition to it. The term such exceptions or liens as
'preponderance of evidence' means the may be provided by law. It
weight, credit and value of the aggregate shall be conclusive upon
evidence on either side and is usually and against all persons,
considered to be synonymous with the terms including the National
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 112
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 113
creates constructive notice to the whole There can be no doubt that Lapus was an
world. (Sec 52, PD 1529) innocent purchaser for value. He validly
transmitted to his successors-in-interest his
Also when Marasigan was issued her TCT indefeasible title or ownership over the
the notice of lis pendens in her disputed lots or parcels of land. That title
predecessors’ title was carried over to her could not be nullified or defeated by the
title. In case of subsequent sales or issuance forty-three years later to other
transfers, the Registrar of Deeds is duty persons of another title over the same lots
bound to carry over the notice of lis pendens due to the failure of the register of deeds to
on all titles to be issued. Otherwise, if he cancel the title preceding the title issued to
cancels any notice of lis pendens in violation Lapus. This must be so considering that
of his duty, he may be held civilly and even Lapus and his successors-in-interest
criminally liable for any prejudice caused to remained in possession of the disputed lots
innocent third persons. and the rival claimants never possessed the
same.
A notice of lis pendens means that a certain
property is involved in a litigation and serves
as notice to the whole world that one who MINGOA VS LAND REG COM
buys the same does it at his own risk. It was 200 SCRA 782 (1991)
also a clear notice to Marasigan that there
was a court case affecting her rights to the A deed of donation of several parcels of land
property she had purchased. Consequently, was executed by petitioner in favor of his
Marasigan was bound by the outcome of the children on July 15, 1987. The deed was
litigation against her vendors or transferors. forwarded to the Register of Deeds for
registration by registered mail on September
9, 1988. It was entered in the primary entry
GARCIA VS CA book of the Register of Deeds on September
95 SCRA 380 (1980) 20, 1988 under Entry No. 181. Said Register
of Deeds suspended registration of the
In this case two sets of certificates of title donation until the petitioner has secured the
were issued to different people for the same proper clearances from the Department of
lots. The 1st set was issued sometime in Agrarian Reform on the ground that under
1920 to Lapus who had bought the parcels Section 6 of Republic Act 6657 any
in 1918. However, despite this registered disposition of private agricultural lands made
sale, the OCT was not cancelled and the prior to June 15, 1988, when the Act took
sale to Lapus was not annotated thereon. effect, must be registered within three (3)
The 2nd set of titles was issued in 1963 when months from said date or on before
heirs of the original owner, relying on the September 13, 1988 to be valid.
clean OCT, were able to succeed in having
TCTs issued to them. Eventually, both sets HELD: Sec. 56 of PD 1529 requires the
of “owners” entered into transactions with Register of Deeds, upon payment of the
other people who in turn secured TCTs in entry fees, to enter in the primary book of
their favor. Whose successors in interest entry, in the order of reception, all
would have a better right? instruments including copies of writs and
processes filed with him relative to
HELD: Where two certificates (of title) registered land the date, hour and minute
purport to include the same land, the earlier shall be noted in said book which shall be
in date prevails. And the rule that in case of regarded as the date of registration of the
double registration the owner of the earlier instrument and the memorandum of each
certificate is the owner of the land applies to instrument on the certificate title shall bear
the successive vendees of the owners of the same date. Sec. 34 of PD1529 makes
such certificates. The vendee of the earlier the Rules of Court suppletorily applicable to
certificate would be the owner as against the land registration and cadastral cases.
vendee of the owner of the later certificate.
Pursuant to Sec 1, Rule 13 of the ROC, in
case of filing by registered mail, it is the post
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 114
office stamp on the envelope or the registry lease, charge, or otherwise deal with the same in
receipt w/c shall be considered as the date accordance with existing laws. He may use such
of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other
In the present case, September 9 should be voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law.
considered the date of filing and thus the But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
deed of donation was filed within the three- instrument, except a will purporting to convey or
month statutory period. affect registered land; shall take effect as
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
only as a contract between the parties and as
A. Voluntary Registration evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to
make registration.
Conveyances and other Dealings by
Registered Owner The act of registration shall be the operative
act to convey or affect the land insofar as third
Voluntary dealings with land refer to persons are concerned, and in all cases under
deeds, instruments or documents which this Decree, the registration shall be made in the
Office of the Register of Deeds for the province
are the results of the free and voluntary
or city where the land lies.
acts of the parties thereto. These include:
Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration-
Sales, conveyances or transfers of every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien
ownership over the titled property; attachment, order, judgement, instrument or
Mortgages and leases; entry affecting registered land shall, if registered,
Powers of attorney; filed or entered in the Office of the Register of
Trusts Deeds for the province or city where the land to
which it relates lies be constructive notice to all
In voluntary registration, when does an persons from the time of such registering, filing,
innocent purchaser for value become or entering.
the holder of a certificate of title?
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 115
declared the land for tax purposes and sold the “Escrituras de Venta”, that the
it to Pajarillo, who thereafter sold it to Neme. thumbmark is not Roberto’s, nor is he
Alberto Alarcon,and that the documents in
Plaintiffs came to know that the favor if Alvarez was not signed by Roberto.
lands were in the possession of Neme. The lower court dismissed on the ground of
They filed a complaint for partition of land laches.
and recovery of their share. It also
appeared that the deeds of sale of the land HELD: Decision sustained. The
were not registered in favor of defendant heirs’ allegation that their father never sold
Neme and not recorded in compliance with the disputed land is belied by the Escrituras
the Public Land Act and the Land de Venta he executed, one in favor of
Registration Law; the vendees even failed to Sergas, another in favor of Alvarez.
have their deed of sale annotated on the Furthermore, Sergas and Alvarez had taken
said TCT or have the title transferred in their adverse possession of the property under
names. the claim of ownership from the time the
property was sold to them. More than 50
HELD: A deed of extra-judicial partition years had elapsed since the execution of the
executed without including some of the deed of sale in 1926 and 1928 when the
heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent heirs instituted their cause of action in 1978.
to the same is fraudulent and vicious, and Land registered under the Torrens
sale of the land subject of the partition did system may not be acquired by prescription
not prejudice and affect the interest and or adverse possession. The presumption
participation of the heirs excluded. given by law is in favor of registered
owners. Although title to property is still in
Moreover, the acquisition of the land the name of Roberto Alarcon, it has been
in question is governed by the Public Land subjected to registration in 1963 if the sale
Act and the Land Registration Law. made by him to Sergas. Technically, Sergas
Considering that the deed of sale had not became the owner in 1963 of the portion
been registered in accordance with the sold to him.
same laws, the same did not constitute a
conveyance which would bind or affect the
land because the registration of a voluntary PNB V. CA
sale of land is the operative act that 98 SCRA 207 (1980)
transmits or transfers title (Tuason vs.
Raymundo, 28 Phil 635). FACTS: Spouses Inigo Bitanga and Rosa
Ver owned a parcel of land. The husband
died before the issuance of the Original
ALARCON V. BIDIN Certificate of Title. He was survived by his
120 SCRA 390 (1983) wife and children. The wife mortgaged the
entire property to PNB. The mortgage
FACTS: Roberto Alarcon leased document was registered in the day book of
Sargas a parcel of land he co-owned with a the Register of Deeds if Ilocos Norte but was
certain Trinidad. In 1926, Alarcon sold a not annotated in the Register of Deeds
portion of his undivided share to Sergas. when the OCT was issued.
The date of the instrument of sale was The wife defaulted on her
entered on the title as January 5, 1926 and obligations to Manila Trading Company. The
the date of inscription as May 3, 1963, with company levied upon the property and was
the name of the vendor in the text of the able to buy the same in a public auction. It
“Escritura de Venta” as Roberto Alarcon thereafter sold its rights over the property to
while the typewritten name at its bottom Sambrano who secured annotation of the
read Alberto Alarcon with a thumbmark said sale.
above it. Alarcon sold another portion of his She also failed to settle her
share to Alvarez in 1928. Alvarez sold it to obligation to PNB, who sold the land at
Francisco, one of the private respondents. public auction with the PNB as the highest
The heirs of Alarcon filed a suit for bidder. The period for redemption expired
recovery and questioned the genuineness if and PNB consolidated title over it, but the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 116
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 117
proceedings were involuntary, the owner's (2) Such right or interest must have
CT may not be available because the arisen subsequent to the date of
owner did not freely enter into the original registration; and
transaction involved.)
(3) No other provision is made in the
Adverse Claims Decree for the registration of such
right or claim. (Sec. 70, PD 1529;
Period of effectivity: 30 days from the Arrazola v. Bernas, 86 SCRA 279)
date of registration
lapse of the 30-day period does Note that a mere money claim CANNOT
not result in the automatic be registered as an adverse claim.
cancellation of the adverse claim
(a petition for cancellation must Formal requisites must be complied
first be filed) with. Failure to do so renders such
How cancelled: adverse claim non-registrable and
Before lapse of 30 days ineffective.
by party in interest: by filing a
petition in the proper RTC for When is notice of lis pendens proper?
cancellation
by claimant: by filing a sworn A notice of lis pendens is proper in
petition withdrawing his actions:
adverse claim
After lapse of 30 days (1) to recover possession of real
by party in interest: by filing a estate;
verified petition for
cancellation (2) to quiet title thereto;
No 2nd adverse claim based on the
same ground may thereafter be (3) to remove clouds upon the
registered by the same claimant. title thereof;
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 118
those which may be finally determined approved by the City Council of Quezon
and laid down therein. City. The Council also authorized the
subdivision for disposition to the public of
Such notice is ordinarily recorded the former open space. Subsequently, the
without the intervention of the court where CFI of Quezon City also approved the same
the action is pending, as it is but an amended subdivision plan.
extrajudicial incident of the pending action The entire Lot 15, including that part
which does not affect the merits thereof. thereof originally designated as open space
was subsequently conveyed to the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
It must be noted that a notice of lis
by way of dacion en pago and to third
pendens can subsist concurrently with an parties who thereafter constructed houses
adverse claim. thereon.
The purchasers of the other
Cancellation of Lis Pendens subdivision lots, who had organized
themselves into a non-stock corporation
a. before final judgment known as the Magdalena Homeowners
may be done upon proper showing Association, Inc., believed that the act of the
that the notice is for the purpose of Quezon City Government of authorizing the
molesting the adverse party, or release of said Lot 15 as open space, after it
that it is not necessary to protect had been so declared and earlier dedicated
the rights of the party who caused as such — and its substitution by another
it to be recorded portion of the subdivision — was beyond the
a mere incident to a court action, City Government's authority. They therefore
and may therefore be ordered by brought suit against the Magdalena Estate,
the court having jurisdiction of it at Inc. (MEI) in the court of First Instance at
any given time (certificate of Quezon city for the recovery of said Lot 15
as "open space" for public use of the
finality issued by the court will not
residents of the subdivision.
suffice; should be done with
While the case was pending, notices
judicial authority) of lis pendens were, at the plaintiffs'
not contingent on the existence of instance, inscribed by the Register of Deeds
a final judgment in the action, and of Quezon City on the Torrens titles of all the
ordinarily has no effect on the lots. The Trial Court then dismissed the
merits thereof case. The petitioners went up to the Court of
Appeals. While the case was pending
b. after final judgment adjudgment, the subdivision owner and DBP
deemed cancelled upon the filed separate motions with the Court of
registration of a certificate of the Appeals praying for cancellation of the
Clerk of Court in which the action notice of lis pendens. These motions were
or proceeding was pending stating granted by resolution. Reconsideration was
the manner of disposal thereof sought and denied by the trial court. Hence,
the petition at bar.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 119
does not affect the merits thereof. It is then learned that 3 days later, a mortgage in
intended merely to constructively advise, or favor of Makati Leasing and Finance
warn, all people who deal with the property Corporation was annotated on the title. This
that they so deal with it at their own risk, and was later cancelled. But a Deed of Absolute
whatever rights they may acquire in the Sale in favor of Reyes and another
property in any voluntary transaction are mortgage in favor of Ayala Investment and
subject to the results of the action, and may Dev't Corp. were subsequently annotated.
well be inferior and subordinate to those Carreon then demanded that title to the land
which may be finally determined and laid be restored in the name of Rexcon.
down therein. The cancellation of such a Due to Carreon's failure to pay the
precautionary notice is therefore also a mere other installments, Reyes considered the
incident in the action, and may be ordered sale rescinded and instituted an action for
by the Court having jurisdiction of it at any rescission before the RTC. Meanwhile,
given time. And its continuance or removal Carreon caused a notice of lis pendens to
— like the continuance or removal of a be annotated on Reyes' title. The RTC
preliminary attachment or injunction — is not affirmed Reyes' extra-judicial foreclosure.
contingent on the existence of a final Seveses then acquired the land
judgment in the action, and ordinarily has no from Reyes. Although the notice of lis
effect on the merits thereof. pendens was carried over to Seveses' title,
In the CAB, the case had properly Reyes informed him that the pending case
come within the appellate jurisdiction of the had been terminated inasmuch as no appeal
Court of Appeals in virtue of the perfection of was filed by Carreon. He then obtained a
the plaintiffs' appeal. It therefore had power Certificate of Finality from the court. Thus
to deal with and resolve any incident in the notice of lis pendens was cancelled.
connection with the action subject of the However, because he was served a
appeal, even before final judgment. The rule notice of eviction, Seveses learned that
that no questions may be raised for the first Carreon indeed appealed the decision of the
time on appeal have reference only to those RTC to the CA, wherein he obtained a
affecting the merits of the action, and not to favorable judgment. This CA decision
mere incidents thereof, e.g., cancellation of became final.
notices of lis pendens, or, to repeat, the
grant or dissolution of provisional remedies. Issue: WON a Certification of Finality will
Now, a notice of lis pendens may be suffice to have a notice of lis pendens
cancelled upon order of the court, "after cancelled (and save the day for Seveses).
proper showing that the notice is for the
purpose of molesting the adverse party, or Held: NO. The rules dictate that
that it is not necessary to protect the rights cancellation of the notice of lis pendens
of the party who caused it to be recorded." should be done with judicial authority. Thus,
The Court of Appeals found as a by virtue of the notice of lis pendens,
fact that the case had dragged on and had Seveses is bound by the outcome of the
been unnecessarily prolonged by repeated litigation subject of the lis pendens. As a
amendments of the complaints by the transferee pendente lite, he stands exactly
plaintiffs, and that the circumstances on in the shoes of the transferor and must
record justified the conclusion that the respect any judgment or decree which may
annotation of the notice of lis pendens was be rendered for or against the transferor. His
intended to molest and harass the interest is subject to the incidents or results
defendants. of the pending suit, and his Certificate of
Title will, in that respect, afford him no
special protection.
SEVESES VS CA,
OCTOBER 13, 1999
YARED VS TONGCO,
Facts: Rexcon Philippines, through its AUGUST 1, 2000
president, Reynaldo Reyes entered into a
contract of sale on installments of a parcel of Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint alleging
land, with private respondent Carreon. He that private respondent succeeded in having
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 120
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 121
b. Using such lands to satisfy a debt Lands dismissed claim of Estate of Villa and
contracted prior to the expiration of the gave due course to application of
5-year period petitioners.
exceptions: in favor of – Petitioners went to SC on certiorari
government with prayer for TRO.
banks
c. Alienation, transfer or conveyance of HELD: It is clear, therefore, that private
respondent (estate of Villa) is not the
any homestead after 5 years and
registered owner of the disputed parcel of
before 25 years after issuance of the
land. Assuming arguendo that respondent
title without approval of the DENR had been granted a patent to the land in
d. Transfer to persons or entities not question, the same has never been
qualified to acquire lands of the public registered with the Registry of Deeds of the
domain province where the property is located.
e. Transfer or lease to an individual Indeed, respondent could offer no proof to
where the result would be holdings in show that the same was registered. All
excess of the maximum limit allowed patents that may be granted must be
by law (12 hectares) registered since the conveyance of the land
exception: in cases of hereditary covered thereby is effective only upon such
succession registration which shall be the operative act
to convey and affect the land (CA 141, Sec.
Effects of violation: 107). Registration is mandatory under the
1) annulment/cancellation of the law to affect third parties.
grant Absent the fact of registration of a
2) reversion of the property to the patent, title to the land covered thereby,
State whether it be by sales or homestead, may
not be said to have been perfected and,
therefore, not indefeasible. A patent
becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title only
Right of Repurchase (Sec. 119, CA 141) when said patent is registered with the
Register of Deeds pursuant to the provisions
Every conveyance of land of the Land Registration Act.
acquired under the free patent or
homestead provisions, when proper, shall
be subject to repurchase by the applicant, DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA,
his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of 17 SCRA 71
5 years from the date of the conveyance.
Sales application was filed. The land
was advertised to highest bidder and was
ORTIGAS V. HIDALGO, awarded to applicant (1928). Having
198 SCRA 635 (1991) complied with the requirements, Director of
Lands signed sales patent in favor of
FACTS: Estate of Villa claims ownership of applicant Tolentino (1950). Later, Tolentino
subject land. It appears that a certain learned that portion of land awarded to him
Teresio Villa applied for the land. However, was covered by homestead application of
land was not registered nor decreed to Braulio Cosme and that homestead patent
anybody. No attempt was made to have and OCT was issued to him (1949).
judicial or administrative confirmation of title Director of Lands verified that
over the land. homestead patent embraced land covered
Estate of Villa filed criminal charges by sales patent to Tolentino. Director filed
against settlers in the land, petitioners action for cancellation of homestead patent
herein. Petitioners were convicted of and OCT. An intervenor came out and asked
squatting. Order of demolition was issued. that he be declared a buyer in good faith
Petitioners, meanwhile asked OP to and be recognized owner of the property.
give the land to them. OP ordered Director RTC cancelled homestead patent and OCT
of Lands to look into the issue. Director of and ordered reversion of land.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 122
______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 123
______________________________________________________________________________________