An applicant for confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title

must show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession

and occupation of the property in question, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.42

Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right,

must be possession under a claim of title or it must be adverse.43
Acts of a possessory character performed by one who holds the
property by mere tolerance of the owner are clearly not in the
concept of an owner, and such possessory acts, no matter how
long contin-ued, do not start the period of prescription running.

Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two

different personalities except in the cases of co-possession.
Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the
present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessors,
the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are
the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions
are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pend-ing
determination of its possession or ownership through proper
proceedings.”

In case of conflict or dispute regarding possession, the rule of

preference is as follows:

The present possessor shall be preferred;

If there are two possessors, the one longer in possession;

If the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents
a title; and

If both possessors have titles, the court shall determine the

rightful possessor and owner of the land.

Requisites for filing of application

There are three requisites for the filing of an application for

registration of title under Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree:

That the property in question is alienable and disposable land of

the public domain;

That the applicants, by themselves or through their prede-

cessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation, and;

That such possession is under a bona fide claim of owner-ship

since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

A grant is conclusively presumed by law when the claimant, by

himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has occupied the
land openly, continuously, exclusively, and under a claim of title
since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto. The possessor is deemed to
have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without the
necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The application for
confirmation of title would then be

mere formality.
The recognized exceptions to the rule are: (1) when the findings
are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impos-sible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when
the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. (5) when
the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its
findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case,
or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant
and the appellee;

when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the
findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.51

Mere casual cultivation is not possession under claim of

ownership

Posses-sion of the land prior to the reclassification of the land as

disposable and alienable cannot be credited as part of the
required possession for confirmation of imperfect title.59

the subject land be first classified as alienable and disposable

before the applicant’s possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership could even start
reclassified as fit for agricultural purposes and, thereafter, (b)
released for disposition as A and D for the entire period required
by law for confirmation of title, which means since June 12, 1945
or earlier.61

Tax declarations; tax receipts.

over the property. The vol-untary declaration of a piece of

property for taxation purposes mani-fests not only one’s sincere
and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces
his adverse claim against the State and all

other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute

needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens
one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.

when the party claiming title presents a deed executed and

delivered to him by the former owner, the receipts and
declarations constitute some proof showing the good faith on the
part of the person occupying and restraining possession of the
property.63 Tax receipts may not prevail as proof of “adverse”
possession against one who is in actual posses-sion of property,
but they constitute at least an indicia of possession

The payment of taxes on property is not alone sufficient evidence

of ownership or possession.

the plaintiff would not lose his property either because he failed
to pay his taxes or because the party from whom he bought it
continued by mistake to pay them.65 Mere failure of the owner to
pay the taxes does not warrant a conclusion that there was
abandonment of a right to the property. The payment of taxes on
property does not alone constitute sufficient evidence of title.66
The requisites of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment must
be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first
and second actions, (a) identity of parties (b) identity of subject
matter and (c) identity of cause of action.75

A final judgment in an ordinary civil case determining the own-

ership of a piece of land is res judicata in a registration proceeding
where the parties and the property are the same as in the former
case.76 The judgment in a case for recovery of property,
adjudicating the ownership thereof to one of the parties, is res
judicata against the defeated party and bars him from applying for
the registration of the same land or from opposing the application
of the former for the registration of the same land.77

But a judgment dismissing an application for registration of land

does not constitute res judicata, and the unsuccessful applicant,
or any person deriving title from him, may file another proceeding
for the registration of the same land.

Certification of the Bureau of Forest Development that the land

has been released as alienable and disposable land.

Land Classification Map showing that the land lies within the
alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.

Executive proclamation withdrawing from a reservation a specific

area and declaring the same open for entry, sale or other mode of
disposition.
Legislative act or executive proclamation reserving a por-tion of
the public domain for public or quasi-public use, which amounts
to a transfer of ownership to the grantee.

The following are not considered sufficient to show the prior

classification and release of the land as A and D land:

The mere recommendation of the District Forester for re-lease of

subject property from the unclassified region does not amount to
a classification that the land is already classified as A and D
land.18

The conversion of subject property into a fishpond by the

applicants, or the alleged titling of properties around it does not
au-tomatically convert the property as A and D land. Applicants’
rem-edy lies in the release of the property from its present
classification.19

The existence of a survey plan of mangrove swamps ap-proved by

the Director of Lands does not have the effect of converting the
mangrove swamps, as forest land, into agricultural land. Such
approval is ineffectual because it is the Director of Forest
Develop-ment who has the authority to determine whether forest
land is more valuable for agricultural rather than forestry uses, as
a basis for its declaration as agricultural land and release for
private ownership.20
4. The cadastral survey of a municipality does not render all lands
comprised therein automatically released as alienable. A survey
made in a cadastral proceeding merely identifies each lot
preparatory to a judicial proceeding for adjudication of title to any
of the lands upon claim of interested parties.

There are three requisites for the filing of an application for

registration of title under Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree:

That the property in question is alienable and disposable land of

the public domain;

That the applicants, by themselves or through their prede-

cessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation, and;

That such possession is under a bona fide claim of owner-ship

since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The requisites of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment must
be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first
and second actions, (a) identity of parties (b) identity of subject
matter and (c) identity of cause of action.
a judgment dismissing an application for registration of land does not constitute res judicata, and
the unsuccessful applicant, or any person deriving title from him, may file another proceeding for
the registration of the same land.
 The judgment rendered in a land registration proceedings becomes final
upon the expiration of thirty days (now fifteen days) to be counted from the date
of receipt of notice of the judgment. An appeal may be taken from the judgment of
the court as in ordinary civil cases.

 While the judgment of the court becomes final fifteen (15)

days from receipt of notice of the judgment, the court
nevertheless retains jurisdiction over the case until after the
expiration of one (1) year from the issuance of the final
decree of registration by the Land Reg-istration Authority
 after judgment has become final and executory, the court
shall forthwith issue an order to the Commissioner of Land
Reg-istration for the issuance of the decree of registration
and certificate of title.
 Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a
cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become
final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the
expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree
of registration.
 as long as a fi-nal decree has not been entered by the Land
Registration Com-mission (now LRA) and the period of one
(1) year has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree,
the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the
registra-tion proceeding continues to be under the control
and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
 It is only after the decree of registration, which is actually
the copy of the original certificate of title to be thereafter
issued by the Register of Deeds, is issued by the LRA that the
decision of the court is deemed “final.” As long as the final
decree is not issued, and the period of one year has not yet
elapsed, the decision remains under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering it. The deci-sion may, upon
notice and hearing, be still set aside and the land
adjudicated to another with better right.
 Judgment once final cannot be amended to modify de-cree.
 The original and fundamental purpose of the Torrens system
of registration is to settle finally and for all time the title to
 land regis-tered. A decree of registration cannot be
permanent if the limits of the land therein registered may be
changed or the amount of land so registered altered by a
subsequent adjudication of said court based upon new
evidence tending to show that the evidence introduced on
the former hearing was incorrect. A decree entered upon
facts which are not true is not itself erroneous. It is a
perfectly correct decree according to the evidence in the
case. No other decree could have been entered. A decree
which is at variance with the evidence pre-sented to support
that decree is an erroneous decree and, within cer-tain
limitations, may be corrected to conform to the evidence.
 After the land has been registered, the registration court
ceases to have jurisdiction over it for any purpose and it
returns to the ju-risdiction of the ordinary courts of law for
all subsequent purposes.83 Contests arising over the
location of division lines are actions in per-sonam and must
be tried in the ordinary courts of law and not in the
registration court.
 the period to perfect appeal shall be counted from the date
when the Solicitor General received a copy of the decision
because the service of the decision upon the city fiscal did
not operate as a service upon the Solicitor General. It is
obvious that, strictly speaking, the city fiscal did not directly
represent the Government. He was merely a surrogate of
the Solici-tor General whose office, “as the law office of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines,” is the entity
that is empowered to “repre-sent the Government in all
registration and related proceedings.”
 A writ of possession is employed to enforce a judgment to
re-cover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to
enter the land and give possession of it to the person
entitled under the judg-ment.
 a writ of possession may be issued: (1) in a land registration
proceeding, which is a proceeding in rem; (2) in an extra-
 judicial foreclosure of a realty mortgage; (3) in a judicial
fore-closure of mortgage, a quasi in rem proceeding,
provided that the mortgagor is in possession of the
mortgaged realty and no third per-son, not a party to the
foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (4) in execution sales.
 any person unlawfully and adversely occupying said lot at
any time up to the issuance of the final decree, may be
subject to judicial ejectment by means of a writ of
possession and it is the duty of the registration court to
issue said writ when asked for by the successful claimant.
 If the writ of possession issued in a land registration
proceed-ing implies the delivery of possession of the land to
the successful litigant therein, a writ of demolition must,
likewise, issue, especially considering that the latter writ is
but a complement of the former which, without said writ of
demolition, would be ineffective.
 when other persons have subsequently entered the
property, claiming the right of possession, the owner of the
reg-istered property or his successors in interest cannot
dispossess such persons by merely asking for a writ of
possession. The remedy is to resort to the courts of justice
and institute a separate action for un-lawful entry or
detainer or for reinvidicatory action, as the case may be.
Only after judgment has been rendered can the prevailing
party secure a writ of possession to enforce his right over
the disputed lot.
 when the parties against whom a writ of possession is
sought have been in possession of the land for at least ten
years, and they entered into possession apparently after the
issuance of the final decree, and none of them had been a
party in the registration proceedings, the writ of possession
will not issue.
 A writ of possession may be issued not only against the
person who has been defeated in a registration case but also
 against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the land registration proceed-ings
 Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must
resort to judicial process, for the recovery of the property
(Article 433, New Civil Code), not summarily through a
motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.
 A petition for a writ of mandamus lies to compel the trial
court to issue the writ of possession to the party entitled
thereto.
 The aggrieved party has a number of remedies to question
the validity of the judgment in a registration case. He may
avail himself of the remedy of new trial or reconsideration
under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, relief from judgment
under Rule 38, or appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme
Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions pursuant to
Section 33 of PD No. 1529.
 He also has such other remedies as review of decree under
Section 32 of PD No. 1529, reconveyance under Sections 53
and 96, damages under Section 32, claim against the
Assurance Fund under Section 95, reversion under Section
101 of CA No. 141, cancellation of title, annulment of
judgment under Rule 47, and criminal prosecution under the
Revised Penal Code.
 Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party
may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final
order and grant a new trial for one or more of the causes
materially affecting the substantial rights of said party. If the
motion for new trial is granted, the judgment is set aside; if
the motion for reconsideration is granted, the judgment is
merely amended.

The grounds are:

 Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which

ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by
 reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
impaired in his rights;
 Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with
reasonable diligence, have discovered, and produced at the
trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
 Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move
for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages
awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to
justify the decision or final order or that decision or final
order is contrary to law.

Contents

The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds

therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant
on the adverse party.

A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for
proof of motions. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph
(a) of Section 1, Rule 37, shall be supported by affidavits of merits
Contents

The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds

therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant
on the adverse party.

A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for
proof of motions. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph
(a) of Section 1, Rule 37, shall be supported by affidavits of merits
which may be rebutted by counter-affidavits. A motion for the
cause mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits
of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given,
or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be
introduced in evidence.

A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the

findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are
not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law,
making express reference to the testimonial or documentary
evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such
findings or con-clusions.

A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll
the reglementary period of appeal.4

No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or

reconsideration shall be allowed.

 A motion for new trial grounded on fraud, accident, mistake

or excusable negligence should ordinarily be accompanied
by two affidavits: one, setting forth the facts and
circumstances alleged to constitute such fraud, accident,
mistake, or execusable negligence; and the other, an
affidavit setting forth the particular facts claimed to
constitute the movant’s meritorious cause of action or
defense. The reason for the first is obvious: it is to enable
the court to determine if the movant’s claim of fraud, etc. is
not mere conclusion but is indeed borne our by the relevant
facts. The reason for the second is equally evident as it
would be useless, a waste of time, to set aside the judgment
and reopen the case to allow the movant to adduce
evidence when he has no valid cause of action or
meritorious defense.
 Fraud to be ground for nullity of a judgment must be
extrinsic to the litigation.7 Extrinsic fraud refers to any
 fraudulent act of the successful party in a litigation which is
committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated
party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said
defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly
his side of the case. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud refers
to acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the
use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did
not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair
and just determi-nation of the case.
 In order to set aside a judgment, it must be shown that
there was fraud in the procurement thereof, and not merely
fraud in the original cause of action, which means that a
trick or devise was employed to prevent the adversary from
presenting his defense, or to conceal from him the pendency
of the action. The fraud must be perpetrated upon the court
in rendering the judgment and it must also appear that
there is a valid defense to the judgment, otherwise the
motion to set aside the judgment will fail.9 Where the fraud
was in the nature of documents allegedly manufactured to
make it appear that a party was the rightful heir of the
disputed property, the fraud is intrinsic.
 setting aside of a final judgment lawfully entered against
him, on the ground of accident or surprise, it must appear
that there was accident or surprise which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against, and by reason of which the
party applying has probably been impaired in his rights.11
Illness constitutes accident over which a party has no
control.12 Failure to attend trial for lack of advance notice
justifies new trial.
 Mistake is some unintentional act, omission, or error arising
from ignorance, surprise, imposition or misplaced
confidence. It may arise either from unconsciousness,
ignorance, forgetfulness, impo-sition, or misplaced
confidence.14 Belief that there is no need to appear during
 the trial because there was already a compromise
agreement is a ground for new trial.
 Generally, a judgment rendered on a compromise
agreement is not subject to appeal, and also immediately
executory, the reason being that when the parties agree to
settle their differences in order to end a pending litigation,
and request the court to render judgment accordingly, there
is an implied waiver of their right to appeal from the
decision. The exception to the rule is provided where a party
to the compromise agreement moves to set it aside on the
ground of fraud, mistake or duress, in which event an appeal
would exist from the order denying the motion.
 A mistake, specifically, shall invalidate consent only if it
refers to the substance of the thing which is the object of
the contract, or to the condition which has principally
moved one or both parties to enter into the contract In
short, the error must be the causal, not merely incidental,
factor that induced the complaining party to enter into the
agreement.16
 Excusable neglect means a failure to take the proper steps at
the proper time, not in consequence of the party’s own
carelessness, inattention, or willful disregard of the process
of the court, but in consequence of some unexpected or
unavoidable hindrance or accident, or reliance on the care
and vigilance of his counsel or on promises made by the
adverse party.
 When a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a
case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an
appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same
case praying that the appeal be given due course.
 A “final” judgment or order (as distinguished from one
which has “become final” or “executory” as of right [final
and executory]), is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving
nothing more to be done by the court in respect thereto.
 Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the
case, and does not end the court’s task of adjudi-cating the
parties’ contention and determining their rights and
liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that
other things remain to be done by the court, is
“interlocutory.”
 A petition for relief from judgment or from denial of appeal
under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 38, must be verified, filed
within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment,
final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not
more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order
was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts
constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of
action or defense, as the case may be.
 The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be
deemed to be the date of its entry.
 A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot
file a petition for relief after his motion has been denied.
These two remedies are exclusive of each other. He should
appeal from the judgment and question such denial.26
Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved
from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy
at law was due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of
procedure.

An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that

completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
when declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable.

No appeal may be taken from:

 An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;

  An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion
seeking relief from judgment;

 An interlocutory order;

 An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;

 An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by

consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;

 An order of execution;

 A judgment or final order for or against one or more of

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

 An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special
civil action under Rule 65.

 Modes of appeal

Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases

decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other
cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules
so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
served in like manner.

Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases

decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule
42.

Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law

are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court
by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

 The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from

notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where
a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30)
days from notice of the judgment or final order.
 The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion
for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of
time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
allowed.
 To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and
to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days
within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial
Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
 A party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as
to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time. A
party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as
 to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the
approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
 In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction
over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due
time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other
parties. In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the
approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the
expiration of the time to appeal of the other par-ties.
 Date of issuance of patent is equivalent to the decree of
registration

The right of a person deprived of land or of any estate or inter-est

therein by adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by ac-
tual fraud is recognized by law as a valid and legal basis for
reopening and revising a decree of registration.39 One of the
remedies avail-able to him is a petition for review. To avail of a
petition for review, the following requisites must be satisfied:

 The petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land;

 He must show actual fraud in the procurement of the de-

cree of registration;

 The petition must be filed within one year from the issu-
ance of the decree by the Land Registration Authority; and

 The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser

for value.
A mere claim of ownership is not sufficient to avoid a certificate
or title obtained under the Torrens system. An important feature
of a certificate of title is its finality.

Grounds for review; fraud must be actual or extrinsic

The fraud that would justify review of a decree of registration

must be actual, that is to say, there must have been an intentional
concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated in
the application or a willful statement of a claim against the truth,
either of which is calculated to deceive or deprive another of his
legal rights.44 The fraud must likewise be extrinsic. And it is
extrinsic when it is employed to deprive a party of his day in
court, thereby preventing him from asserting his right to the
property registered in the name of the applicant.

Relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where

the fraud consists in the following acts:

Deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not con-tested

when in fact they are;

Applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the

name of a co-owner of land which he knows had not been alloted
to him in the partition;

Intentionally concealing facts, and conniving with the land

inspector to include in the survey plan the bed of a navigable
stream;

Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims;

Deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice;

Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application for reg-

istration;

Misrepresentation by the applicant about the identity of the lot to

the true owner causing the latter to withdraw his opposi-tion.

That doctrine, however, presuppposes that the application to

have the registration set aside was made within a year or before
the land has fallen into the hands of an innocent purchaser.

Relief on the ground of fraud will not be granted in the follow-ing

instances:

Where the alleged fraud goes into the merits of the case, is
intrinsic and not collateral, and has been controverted and de-
cided;

Where it appears that the fraud consisted in the presen-tation at

the trial of a supposed forged document, or a false and per-jured
testimony; or in basing the judgment on a fraudulent compro-
mise agreement; or in the alleged fraudulent acts or omissions of
the counsel which prevented the petitioner from properly
present-ing the case.

 A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys

prop-erty of another, without notice that some other person
 has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full
and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or
before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
person in the property. Good faith consists in an honest
intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious
advantage of another.62 Good faith is the opposite of fraud
and of bad faith, and its non-existence must be established
by competent proof.63 While good faith is presumed,
conversely, bad faith must be established by competent
proof by the party alleging the same.
 Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the person
from whom he received the thing was the owner of the
same and could convey his title. Good faith, while it is
always to be presumed in the absence of proof to the
contrary, requires a well-founded belief that the person
from whom title was received was himself the owner of the
land, with the right to convey it. There is good faith where
there is an honest intention to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage from another.65 The honesty of
intention that constitutes good faith implies freedom from
knowledge of circumstances that ought to put a prudent
person on inquiry.
 In order that a purchaser may be considered in good faith, it
is enough that he examines the latest certificate of title.
 There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or the falsity of the statement of facts
while a question of law exists when there is doubt or
controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.
 A certificate of title is not conclusive where it is the product
of a faulty or fraudulent registration.
 The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time,
stron-ger in right) gains greater significance in case of
double sale of im-movable property. When the thing sold
twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first
 records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good
faith, shall be deemed the owner.
 Prior registration of the subject property does not by itself
con-fer ownership or a better right over the property. Article
1544 re-quires that before the second buyer can obtain
priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good
faith from the time he acquired the property until the title
or possession is transferred to him.
 The governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first
in time, stronger in right). Knowledge by the first buyer of
the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except
when the second buyer first registers in good faith the
second sale.
 An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy
granted to the rightful owner of land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another
for the purpose of com-pelling the latter to transfer or
reconvey the land to him.
 An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy
granted to the rightful owner of land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another
for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or
reconvey the land to him.