Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cadastral Proceedings, Certificate of Title and Public Grant
Cadastral Proceedings, Certificate of Title and Public Grant
(g) if the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last 1. Reyes v. Raval Reyes
assessed value; and FACTS OF THE CASE:
(h) The encumbrances, if any, affecting the lots and the Mateo, Juan and Francisco are the registered owners
names of adverse claimants, as far as known. of 4 different lots covered by 1 OCT and 2 others
HEARING; JUDGMENT; DECREE covered by 1 OCT
On July 17, 1962 Mateo and Juan filed a motion for
Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the issuance of writ of possession over all the lots
case may occur at any convenient place within the covered by both Certificate of titles
province in which the lands are situated and shall be
Raval Reyes opposed the same claiming that he has Spouses Vivas and Lizardo as owners of a land in
been in and is entitled to the possession of the two Laguna sold for it 30,000 to Spouses Magcamit and
lots covered by 1 OCT, since he acquired them by Cosico.
way of an unrecorded absolute sale from Francisco, The sale, with a right to repurchase was recorded in
who sold to Raval Reyes his undivided 1/3 share the RoD in Laguna
interest in the disputed lots. The sale was made absolute by Spouses Vivas and
After due hearing, the court issued the Writ of Liardo in favor of Spouses Magcamit and Cosico for
possession over 2 of the 4 lots covered by 1 OCT the sum of 90,000 (50,000 was paid upon the
Petitioners Mateo and Juan commenced an ordinary execution of the instrument) the balance of 40,000
civil action against Raval Reyes seeking to recover was to be paid the moment the certificate of title is
the products of the disputed lots, or their value and issued.
moral damages. From the execution of the absolute sale, Spouses
Raval Reyes counterclaimed for partition of all the Magcamit and Cosico have been in peaceful, adverse
disputed lots on the ground of the sale made to him and open possession of the property.
by Francisco 2 years from the execution of the Deed of Absolute
Pending Trial, Mateo and Juan filed a motion to Sale, an OCT was issued in the name of Spouses Vivas
compel Raval Reyes to deliver to them the owner’s and Lizardo without the knowledge of Spouses
duplicates of OCT which he opposed. Magcamit and Cosico.
Court denied the motion on the ground that the From there, the Spouses Vivas and Lizardo executed
parcels of land covered by both titles are subject of an SPA in favor of Ramirez authorizing her to
litigation that has not yet been decided on the mortgage the property with the National Grains
merits. Authority
MFR was denied hence this appeal. The mortgage was extra-judicially foreclosed in favor
of NGA due to unpaid indebtedness by Ramirez.
ISSUE:
Provincial Sheriff caused the notice of sale of the
Who between the Petitioner-Appellants or Respondent- property and scheduled the public auction sale. NGA
Appellee has a better right to the possession or custody was the highest and successful bidder so a certificate
of the disputed owner’s duplicates of certificates of of sale was issued in favor of NGA
titled? NGA in its capacity as Attorney-In-Fact of the
mortgage sold the property in favor of itself. TCT was
RULING:
issued in favor of NGA
The Petitioner-Appellants has a better right. When Spouses Magcamit and Cosico learned of all of
this, it offered to pay NGA 40,000 which is the
The owner of the certificate of title has a more balance due under the terms of the deed of absolute
preferential right to the possession of the owner’s sale but NGA refused.
duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the
NGA asked Spouses Vivas and Lizardo to vacate but
certificate and has yet to establish his right to the
they refused
possession thereof.
Spouses Vivas and Lizarda filed a complaint for
The rights of Raval-Reyes are amply protected given that reconveyance or transfer of ownership to them.
he has already filed an independent civil action to RTC declared NGA to be the rightful owners while CA
recover his alleged share in the property lots. reversed them and found Spouses Vivas and Lizardo
Furthermore, he may better protect his right by having a to be the rightful owners.
notice of Lis Pendens annotated on the title pursuant to
ISSUE:
Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Whether or not violation of the terms of the agreement
2. National Grains Authority v. IAC
between the Spouses Vivas and Lizardo, (sellers) and
FACTS OF THE CASE: Spouses Magcamit and Cosico (Buyers) to deliver the
Certificate of Title to the latter upon its issuance
constitutes a breach of trust SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT THE
TITLE AND RIGHT ACQUIRED BY PETITIONER NGA, an therefore, the NGA is an innocent purchaser for value,
innocent purchaser for value. first as an innocent mortgagee under Section 32 of P.D.
1529 and later as innocent purchaser for value in the
RULING:
public auction sale.
No. it is not sufficient to defeat the title and right
3. Cajayon v. Spouses Batuyong
acquired by NGA.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
While registration of the conditional sale with right of
repurchase may be binding on third persons, it is by Cajayon, Constantino and Candelaria were co-
provision of law UNDERSTOOD TO BE WITHOUT owners of a lot covered by a TCT
PREJUDICE TO THIRD PARTY WHO HAS A BETTER RIGHT. On February 1, 1995 a partition agreement was
entered into by Petitioners and Candelaria where 6-
NGA is a registered owner under the Torrens System and
A was given to Candelaria while 6-B was given to
thus has the better right than respondent and that the
petitioners. The original TCT was cancelled and a new
deed of absolute sale with suspensive condition IS NOT
one was issued in favor of petitioners
REGISTERED and is necessarily binding only on the
Candelaria sold his property including the
Spouses Vivas and Lizardo (Seller) and Spouses Magcamit
improvements to Spouses Batuyong. A TCT was
and Cosico (buyers)
issued in their favor
Thus, it has been invariably restated by this Court, "The Cajayon started construction of a 7-door bungalow-
real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land type building that allegedly intruded on the land of
and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Spouses Batuyong
It was agreed upon that construction will be stalled
The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains
pending the result of the relocation survey
a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he
Verification survey found that the lots were not
has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is
geographically positioned and that sub-lot B serves
then considered as guilty of fraud and he may be
as right of way of 6-B while sub-lot C was the portion
compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner
of lot 6-A (Batuyong’s) presently occupied by
so long as the property has not passed to the hands of an
Cajayon
innocent purchaser for value
In spite of this, petitioners still proceeded with the
It will be noted that the spouses Vivas and Lizardo never construction thereby occupying 20.62 square meters
committed any fraud in procuring the registration of the of Batuyong’s lot and a protion of the right of way of
property in question. On the contrary, their application petitioner’s tenants.
for registration which resulted in the issuance of OCT No. Respondents fenced their lot and demanded
1728 was with complete knowledge and implied petitioners to vacate their lot.
authority of private respondents who retained a portion MeTC ordered petitioner to vacate said portion, RTC
of the consideration until the issuance to said spouses of and CA affirmed
a certificate of title applied for under the Torrens Act and
the corresponding delivery of said title to them. The ISSUE:
question therefore, is not about the validity of OCT No. RULING:
1728 but in the breach of contract between private
respondents and the Vivas spouses. Petitioner NGA was PRESCRIPTION; SUIT FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR PERIOD
never a privy to this transaction. Neither was it shown FROM DISPOSSESSION MANDATED BY LAW IN CASE AT
that it had any knowledge at the time of the execution of BAR. — Petitioners contend that while they concede they
the mortgage, of the existence of the suspensive might have intruded on respondents' property, the
condition in the deed of absolute sale much less of its action is barred by prescription because it was filed more
violation. Nothing appeared to excite suspicion. The than one (1) year after the occurrence of the alleged
Special Power of Attorney was regular on its face; the intrusion. The contention is baseless. Section 1, Rule 70
OCT was in the name of the mortgagor and the NGA was of the Rules of Court allows a plaintiff to bring an action
the highest bidder in the public auction. Unquestionably, in the proper inferior court for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer within one (1) year, respectively, after such
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. In VERIFICATION SURVEY REPORT PREPARED BY A
forcible entry, the one-year period is counted from the GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONARY; CASE AT BAR. — There is
date of actual entry on the land. Records show that the a presumption that official duty is regularly performed,
ejectment suit was instituted on 11 April 1997. i.e., government officials who perform them are clothed
Petitioners' actual entry into the property, according to with the presumption of regularity, as the courts below
the complaint, took place on 21 May 1996. Thus, the suit pointed out. In this case, the verification survey was
was filed well within the one (1)-year period mandated conducted by a government functionary. Even
by law. prescinding from the presumption of regularity, what
appears on record is that the verification survey was
CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; BUILDER IN GOOD
conducted with the agreement of both parties and in
FAITH, DEFINED; POSSESSION OF TITLED PROPERTY
their presence. That was the finding made by the courts
ADVERSE TO THE REGISTERED OWNER IS NECESSARILY
below and affirmed by the appellate court without any
TAINTED WITH BAD FAITH; CASE AT BAR. — As a
wrinkle.
collateral issue, petitioners claim that they are at least
entitled to the rights of a builder in good faith on the 4. Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano
premise that they are not the owners of the property
FACTS OF THE CASE:
encroached upon. This contention is not tenable. Good
faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he Federico is the son of Andres who was the owner of
is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or a parcel of land located in Bulacan.
flaw in his title. In the instant case, when the verification Andres died and possession of the property was
survey report came to petitioners' knowledge their good transferred to Federico a document was executed by
faith ceased. The survey report is a professional's field the heirs of Andres who waived all their rights to the
confirmation of petitioners' encroachment of property in favor of Federico
respondents' titled property. It is doctrinal in land Meanwhile, A Deed of Conditional Sale was executed
registration law that possession of titled property between Feliciano and Respondent Mano where
adverse to the registered owner is necessarily tainted Feliciano agreed to sell to Mano a 2056 sqm parcel
with bad faith. Thus, proceeding with the construction of land located in Bulacan
works on the disputed lot despite knowledge of Jose applied for a free patent and was issued OCT but
respondents' ownership put petitioners in bad faith. it indicated that the area of the property was 2739
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF sqm.
COURTS BELOW, MORE SO WHEN AFFIRMED BY THE Federico declared in his name under tax declaration
APPELLATE COURT, CANNOT BE RAISED IN A PETITION the property covered by declaration of real property
FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI; CASE AT BAR. — in the name of Andres
Petitioners question the evidentiary weight of the Jose sold a portion of his land to Balingcongan
verification survey report. They point out that since the thereby splitting the property, TCT was issued to
survey was a unilateral act of respondents, done as it was both of them covering their respective share.
without their consent, they should not be bound by its Federico transferred his residence to Malabon and
findings. In raising the issue, petitioners are in effect left the care of the property to his nephew Vicente.
asking this Court to reassess the factual findings of the He instructed Vicente to construct a perimeter fence
courts below, a task which is beyond this Court's domain. around the property but was prevented by Jose who
Factual matters cannot be raised in a petition for review claimed that the 447 sqm. was hi property as per the
on certiorari. This Court at this stage is limited to TCT he holds while Federico claimed it is part of the
reviewing errors of law that may have been committed property he inherited from his Father Andres
by the lower courts. We find no ample reason to depart When the matter couldn’t be settled amicably,
from this rule, more so in this case where the Court of petitioners lodged a complaint for Annulment of
Appeals has affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and Title and/or reconveyance
the MeTC.
ISSUE:
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF PERFORMANCE OF
Who owns the disputed 447 sqm. Property?
OFFICIAL DUTIES; EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE
RULING: that his lot is only about 2,000 square meters and that
Andres owns the adjoining lot which is enclosed by a
There is preponderance of evidence that Federico is the
fence. Part of his testimony is copied verbatim to wit:
owner of the disputed property
The testimony of Feliciano from whom Jose purchased
Feliciano sold a portion of Lot 1305 to Jose. After the sale
the property coincides with the observation made during
was made, a Sketch/Special Plan 20 was prepared by
the ocular inspection conducted by the RTC that there is
Geodetic Engineer Fortunato E. Chavez. It is clear from
an old fence, measuring about 40 meters which encloses
such document that Lot 1305-A representing the upper
the true and actual area purchased by Jose. Feliciano
portion with an area of 1,112 square meters was
retained the upper portion of Lot No. 1305 which
retained by Feliciano and what was sold was the lower
eventually became Lot No. 1305-A because it is along the
portion thereof which became Lot No. 1305-B with a
national highway. The disputed 447 square meters
total area of 2,292 square meters. This exceeds the area
property is located at the eastern side of Lot No. 1305-A.
of 2,056 square meters indicated in the above sale
He gave Jose a right of way at the western side 24 of the
transaction.
lot he retained for himself. This supports the theory that
In another Sketch/Special Plan 21 prepared by Geodetic Feliciano was fully aware that the property at the eastern
Engineer Norberto C. Chavez, it is shown that Lot No. part of his property belonged to Andres from whom
10176-B with an area of 2,292 square meters with a right Federico inherited the said lot. This is the reason why a
of way going to Camino Provincial Highway was the one right of way going to the national highway was given to
sold to Jose and which was also sold by him to the Jose between Lot No. 1305-A and Lot No. 1304. If the
Balingcongan spouses. This is also known as Lot No. disputed property is part of the sale as claimed by Jose
1305-B. TCT No. T-112865 was issued in the name of the then Feliciano would not have given the said right of way
spouses Balingcongan. Lot No. 10175 which represents but would rather keep it to himself.
the upper portion of Lot No. 1305 was retained by
"Settled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of
Feliciano. This is also known as Lot No. 1305-A. However,
title included by mistake or oversight the land owned by
what is surprising is that the said plan showed that Lot
another, does not become the owner of such land by
No. 10176-A with an area of 447 square meters had been
virtue of the certificate alone. The Torrens System is
made to appear as part of the lot sold by Feliciano to
intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness
Jose. TCT No. T-112864 was issued in the name of Jose. If
of the certificate of registration but is not intended to
indeed this disputed area is part of Lot No. 1305 then it
perpetrate fraud against the real owner of the land. The
should have been part of Lot No. 1305-A which was
certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper
retained by Feliciano as it is at the East side of the said
from the true owner."
property.
Anent the second issue, we rule that Jose committed
Moreover, during the ocular inspection, 22 it was
fraud in obtaining title to the disputed property. The
observed that all the neighboring lots are either square
chain of events leading to the issuance of title in his name
or rectangle. There is an old fence, measuring about 40
shows beyond cavil the bad faith or a fraudulent pattern
meters long (abutting the newly constructed fence),
on his part. The evidence on record disclosed that even
which bounds the true and actual area purchased by
before Jose purchased the 2,056 square meters from
Jose. Thus, if the old fence is followed, the land
Feliciano, he had already caused on January 30, 1991 the
purchased would either be square or rectangular like the
survey of a 2,739 square meters lot. Although the
adjoining lots. However, if the disputed 447 square
document of sale expressly stated that the area sold was
meters would be included in the land purchased by Jose,
2,056 square meters and is located at Dampol 1st,
the same would slant remarkably to the right, to the
Pulilan, Bulacan, however, when he filed his application
extent of covering the entire area fronting the provincial
for free patent in March 1991, he used the survey on the
road, which as per tax declaration of Federico, is the
2,739 square meters and indicated the same to be
boundary of his land on the north.
located at Dampol II, Pulilan, Bulacan. Also, in his
Furthermore, Feliciano, the owner of Lot No. 1305 from application, he stated that the land described and
whom Jose acquired the property through sale, testified applied for is not claimed or occupied by any person
when in reality the same is owned and possessed by DISPOSABLE OR NOT, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3872. —
Federico. A member of the cultural minorities who has
continuously occupied and cultivated either by himself or
B. Indefeasibility
through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of
1. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp. v. Dumyung
land, whether disposable or not since July 4, 1956, shall
The Republic of the Philippines filed separate civil actions be entitled to a free patent issued to him for such tract
for annulment of the free patent and the corresponding or tracts of land not exceed 20 hectares; provided that at
certificates of title issued pursuant thereto to herein the time he filed his free patent application he is not the
private respondents on the ground of misrepresentation owner of any real property secured or disposable under
and false data and information furnished by said the provision of the Public Land Law. (Section 44,
respondents. The Lepanto Consolidated Mining Republic Act 3872)
Company intervened alleging that a portion of the titled
2. ID.; CERTIFICATION OF TITLE COVERING TIMBER OR
lands in question was within its ordinary timber license,
MINERAL LAND IS VOID. — It is well settled that a
and other portion, embraced in its mineral claims. The
certificates of title is void when it covers property of
proceedings on these cases were suspended until after
public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral
the three criminal cases for falsification of public
lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the
documents filed by the Republic of the Philippines
hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be
against private respondents for allegedly making untrue
cancelled.
statements in their application for free patents over the
subject lands were dismissed for insufficiency of 3. CIVIL PROCEDURE; ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASE IS
evidence. Thereafter, upon motion of private NOT A BAR TO A CIVIL CASE; CASE AT BAR. — The
respondents and without having received any evidence acquittal of private respondents in the criminal cases for
in the civil cases, the trial judge dismissed said cases, and falsification of public documents by allegedly making
ruled that respondents' original certificates of title had untrue statements in their application for free patents is
become indefeasible, that they were entitled to the not a bar to civil actions to cancel their certificates of title
benefits of Republic Act 3872 as members of the cultural issued pursuant to the said free patents. For, the only
minorities, and their acquittal in the criminal cases for issue in the criminal cases for falsification was whether
falsification was a bar to these civil cases. Hence, this there was evidence beyond doubt that the private
petition. respondent had committed the acts of falsification
alleged in the informations, and the factual issues of
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred in
whether or not the private respondents are entitled to
ruling on the factual issues in these civil cases without
the benefits of Republic Act No. 3872, and whether or
having received evidence thereon, and ruled that the
not the lands in question are timber and mineral were
acquittal of private respondents from the criminal cases
not in issue in said criminal cases.
for falsification could not be a bar to these civil cases, for,
the only issue in the criminal cases was whether or not 4. ID.; ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE; JUDGMENT;
there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the PREMATURE DISMISSAL OF ACTION. — In a suit for
private respondents had committed the acts of cancellation of title of land on the grounds that the lands
falsification, and the factual issues of whether or not the covered are mineral and timber lands, it is premature for
lands in question were timber and mineral, and whether the trial court to rule that the certificates of title issued
or not private respondents belonged to the cultural to defendants have become indefeasible and that
minorities and are qualified under Republic Act 3872 to defendants are entitled to the benefits of Republic Act
be issued free patents on said lands were not in issue in 3872 as members of the cultural minorities, and thereby
said criminal cases. dismiss the actions without first receiving evidence on
the factual issues, namely whether or not the lands in
Cases remanded to the trial court for further
question are timber and mineral lands and whether
proceedings.
private respondents belong to the cultural minorities and
1. LAND REGISTRATION; MEMBERS OF CULTURAL qualified to be issued free patents.
MINORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC LAND,
5. APPEAL; REMAND OF A CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT not be reopened or revised by reason of absence,
WHERE NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS FINDINGS. — Where minority, or other disability of any person adversely
the trial court prematurely dismisses a suit for affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for
cancellation of title of land without first receiving reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of
evidence on the factual issues raised in the action, the any person, including the government and the branches
order of dismissal, upon appeal, shall be set aside and thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of
2. Heirs of Maximo Labanan v. Heirs of Constancio
First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the
Labanon
decree of registration not later than one year from and
Constancio Labanon with the help of his more educated after the date of the entry of such decree of registration,
brother, cultivated and acquired a property though a but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the
homestead patent prior the WW-II. Since Constancio do court where an innocent purchaser for value has
not know the formalities necessary in the application of acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights
a homestead patent and subsequently a certificate of may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent
title, he asked the assistance of his brother Maximo. In purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
return, he offered to give half of the property to Maximo. this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent
lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the acquisition of the homestead patent in 1941
and subsequently the OCT, Maximo executed a Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the
document transferring his rights over the eastern decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
property to his brother. Upon Constancio’s death, the shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by
eastern portion was sold to Alberto Magkilang, his son- such decree of registration in any case may pursue his
in-law. The heirs of Maximo however intervened in the remedy by action for damages against the applicant or
said sale by causing the cancellation of the said sale. No any other persons responsible for the fraud.
reasons were given for refusal. Heirs of C Labanon
Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, the aforequoted
demanded the surrender the OCT. But heirs of M.
legal provision does not totally deprive a party of any
Labanon refused to honor the prior agreement of
remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered
brothers Constancio and Maximo.
in the name of another. Section 32 of PD 1529 merely
ISSUES: precludes the reopening of the registration proceedings
for titles covered by the Torrens System, but does not
1. Whether or not Original Certificate of Title No. 41320 foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the
issued on April 10, 1975 in the name of MAXIMO property to its rightful owner.
LABANON be now considered indefeasible and
conclusive; and While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that
the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after
2. Whether or not the Trust Agreement allegedly made a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party
by Constancio Labanon and Maximo Labanon prescribed of a remedy in law. The acceptability of the Torrens
RULING: System would be impaired, if it is utilized to perpetuate
fraud against the real owners.
First Issue:
The mere possession of a certificate of title under the
Respondents are not precluded from challenging the Torrens system does not necessarily make the possessor
validity of Original Certificate of Title No. P-41320 a true owner of all the property described therein for he
The principle of indefeasibility of a TCT is embodied in does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the
Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, owner of the land illegally included. It is evident from the
amending the Land Registration Act, which provides: records that the petitioner owns the portion in question
and therefore the area should be conveyed to her. The
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent remedy of the land owner whose property has been
purchaser for value. — The decree of registration shall wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name
is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set subject property since they merely subrogated to the
aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as rights and obligations of their predecessor-in-interest.
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring
3. Caraan v. Court of Appeals
an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the FACTS:
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
Spouses Cosme filed a complaint of accion
Undeniably, respondents are not precluded from reivindicatoria with damages against Caraan in the
recovering the eastern portion of Original Certificate of RTC.
Title (OCT) No. P-14320, with an area subject of the They alleged that they are the registered owners of
"Assignment of Rights and Ownership" previously owned the real property located in QC under TCT 214949
by their father, Constancio and that they had been paying realty txes on the
Labanon. The action for Recovery of Ownership before property from 1969-1993
the RTC is indeed the appropriate remedy. It was in March 1991 that they discovered that the
land was being occupied by Caraan who had built his
Second Issue: residential house and such occupancy was effected
through fraud strategy and stealth with the
The trust agreement between Maximo Labanon and
knowledge and consent of the Spouses Cosme.
Constancio Labanon may still be enforced.
Demands both oral and written, asking Caraan to
In the instant case, such intention to institute an express vacate the premises were made but were to no avail
trust between Maximo Labanon as trustee and Spouses Cosme prayed that judgment be rendered
Constancio Labanon as trustor was contained in not just ordering Caraan and all persons holding title under
one but two written documents, the Assignment of him to vacate the subject premises and deliver
Rights and Ownership as well as Maximo Labanon's April possession of the property to the Spouses Cosme.
25, 1962 Sworn Statement. In both documents, Maximo Caraan interposed the defense that he acquired the
Labanon recognized Constancio Labanon's ownership land through EOAP from 30 years of Continuous,
and possession over the eastern portion of the property Public, Open and Uninterrupted Possession.
covered by OCT No. P-14320, even as he recognized RTC and CA ruled in favor of Spouses Cosme.
himself as the applicant for the Homestead Patent over Caraan died and his heirs filed a petition for review
the land. Thus, Maximo Labanon maintained the title on certiorari insisting that Spouses Cosme’s TCT is a
over the property while acknowledging the true derivative of OCT and TCT that has been declared
ownership of Constancio Labanon over the eastern null and void
portion of the land. The existence of an express trust Spouses Cosme contended that their Certificate of
cannot be doubted nor disputed. title cannot collaterally attacked thus their TCT is
In relation to the issue of prescription, unrepudiated valid an existing and is conclusive evidence of
express trusts do not prescribe. In the case at bar, ownership unless it becomes subject of a direct
Maximo Labanon never repudiated the express trust attack through a proceeding for cancellation of title.
instituted between him and Constancio Labanon. And ISSUE: Who has a better right to the subject property?
after Maximo Labanon's death, the trust could no longer
be renounced; thus, respondents' right to enforce the 4. Republic v. Guerrero
trust agreement can no longer be restricted nor FACTS:
prejudiced by prescription.
• December 1964: Benjamin Guerrerro filed with the
Lastly, the heirs of Maximo Labanon are bound to the Bureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales Application
stipulations embodied in the Assignment of Rights and covering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin,
Ownership pursuant to Article 1371 of the Civil Code that Quezon City. This application was approved and
contracts take effect between the parties, assigns, and Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued subsequent
heirs. Petitioners as heirs of Maximo cannot disarrow the thereto.
commitment made by their father with respect to the
• Angelina Bustamante later filed a protest with the again, we have said that a Torrens certificate is evidence
Bureau of Lands claiming that Guerrero obtained the of an indefeasible title to property in favor of the person
sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts whose name appears thereon.
and/or omission of material facts. This was however
However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 recognizes the right
dismissed by the Director of lands and further affirmed
of a person deprived of land to institute an action to
by then Minister of Natural Resources.
reopen or revise a decree of registration obtained by
• Through a MFR, an ocular investigation and relocation actual fraud. However, the Republic in this case failed to
survey found out that 83 sq. m. of the titled property of prove that there is actual and extrinsic fraud to justify a
Guerrero is under actual physical possession of Marcelo review of the decree. It has not adduced adequate
Bustamante, husband of Angeluna. Thus, upon the evidence that would show that respondent employed
directive of the Office of The President, the Director of actual and extrinsic fraud in procuring the patent and the
Lands instituted a petition for the amendment of plan corresponding certificate of title. Petitioner miserably
and technical description. failed to prove that it was prevented from asserting its
right over the lot in question and from properly
• Guerrero opposed said motion through a motion to
presenting its case by reason of such fraud.
dismiss but however was dismissed thereafter. However,
the RTC ruled in favor of Guerrero stating that the 2. YES. Guerrero’s title, having been registered under the
Republic failed to prove its allegation that Guerrero Torrens system, was vested with th garment of
obtained the sales patent and certificate of title through indefeasibility.
fraud and misrepresentation. RTC also ruled that the
NB: The Torrens system was adopted in this country
original certificate of title in the name of Guerrero
because it was believed to be the most effective measure
acquired the characteristics of indefeasibility after the
to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect
expiration of 1 year from the entry of the decree of
their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
registration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court.
established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece
ISSUES: of land on the assurance that the seller’s title thereto is
valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that
1. W/N the Republic has proven by clear and convincing
his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not
evidence that Guerrero procured Miscellaneous Sales
only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were
Patent and OCT through fraud and misrepresentation.
permitted, public confidence in the system would be
2. W/N Guerrero’s title acquired the characteristic of eroded and land transactions would have to be attended
indefeasibility. by complicated and not necessarily conclusive
investigations and proof of ownership. The further
HELD: consequence would be that land conflicts could be even
1. NO. more abrasive, if not even violent. The government,
recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system,
the property in question, while once part of the lands of should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued
the public domain and disposed of via a miscellaneous thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are
sales arrangement, is now covered by a Torrens satisfied.
certificate. Grants of public land were brought under the
operation of the Torrens system by Act No. 496, or the While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles
Land Registration Act of 1903. Under the Torrens system to lands but merely a system of registration of titles to
of registration, the government is required to issue an lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder
official certificate of title to attest to the fact that the should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the
person named is the owner of the property described mistake or negligence of the State’s agents, in the
therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of
thereon noted or what the law warrants or reserves. manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of
the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop
Upon its registration, the land falls under the operation forever to any question as to the legality of the title,
of Act No. 496 and becomes registered land. Time and except claims that were noted in the certificate at the
time of the registration or that may arise subsequent properties from the respondents, to their damage and
thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system prejudice.
shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency
• Efforts to amicably settle the case proved futile, leaving
of land registration officials, who are ordinarily
the respondents no recourse but to file a complaint for
presumed to have regularly performed their duties.
ejectment which the lower court dismissed because the
C. Prescription respondents should have filed an accion publiciana.
Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. • Thus, they filed their complaint for accion publiciana,
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the praying for recovery of possession of the properties and
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or the payment of P1,000.00 as monthly rental for the use
adverse possession. of the properties from January 1987 until the
petitioners-defendants vacate the properties, plus
1. Javier v. Judge Concepcion
P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and
P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
D. Collateral Attack
ALLEGATION of PLAINTIFF
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. • Gregorio Miranda owned the properties by virtue of an
It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a oral sale made in his favor by the original owner, Vivencio
direct proceeding in accordance with law. Antonio (Antonio).
1. Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations • That in 1948, Gregorio Miranda was Antonio’s
2. Madrid v. Spouses Mapoy and Martinez carpenter, and they had a verbal contract for Miranda to
stay in, develop, fix and guard the properties; in 1972,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Antonio gave the properties to Gregorio Miranda in
• The spouses Bonifacio and Felicidad Mapoy consideration of his more than twenty (20) years of loyal
(respondents) are the absolute owners of two parcels of service.
land (the properties) known as Lot Nos. 79 and 80 of
• Petitioner Bernardo asserted ownership over the
Block No. 27 of the Rizal Park Subdivision, located at No.
portion he occupies based on an oral sale to him by
1400 Craig Street corner Maria Clara Street, Sampaloc,
Antonio.
Manila, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
130064 and 130065 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila. • That Bernardo became a ward of Gregorio Miranda in
The properties have a combined area of two-hundred 1965 when he was 10 years old and helped in the
seventy (270) square meters. development of the properties; he helped construct a
bodega and a house within the properties.
• On April 4, 1988, the respondents-plaintiffs sought to
recover possession of the properties through an accion • Bernardo and Antonio met in 1975, and Antonio
publiciana filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of promised that the bodega would be given to him in
Manila against petitioners. gratitude for his work.
ALLEGATION of DEFENDANT • Petitioner Madrid, for his part, claimed that he started
occupying a portion of the properties in 1974, and
• They acquired the properties from the spouses
constructed a house on this portion in 1989 with the
Procopio and Encarnacion Castelo under a Deed of
permission of Bernardo, the son of Gregorio Miranda.
Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1978.
• On the basis of the length of their claimed occupation
• They merely tolerated the petitioners’ continued
of the properties, the petitioners likewise invoked
occupancy and possession until their possession became
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 (PD 1517), also
illegal when demands to vacate the properties were
known as the Urban Land Reform Law, which provides
made.
that legitimate tenants of 10 year or more, who have
• Despite the demands, the petitioners continued to built their homes on these lands and who have
occupy and unlawfully withhold possession of the continuously resided thereon for the past ten years, shall
not be dispossessed of their occupied lands and shall be not duty-bound to again analyze and weigh the evidence
allowed the right of first refusal to purchase these lands introduced and considered in the tribunals below.[17]
within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices. This is particularly true where the CA has affirmed the
trial court's factual findings, as in the present case. These
COURT’S RULING
trial court findings, when affirmed by the CA, are final
We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit. and conclusive and are not open for our review on
appeal.
a. Accion Publiciana and Ownership
In the present case, both the RTC and the CA gave more
Accion publiciana, also known as accion plenaria de weight to the certificate of title the respondents-
posesion,[10] is an ordinary civil proceeding to plaintiffs presented, and likewise found that the
determine the better right of possession of realty petitioners-defendants' possession of the properties was
independently of title.[11] It refers to an ejectment suit merely upon the respondents-plaintiffs’ tolerance. We
filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of see no reason to doubt or question the validity of these
the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of findings and thus recognize their finality.
possession of the realty.
As a matter of law, a Torrens Certificate of Title is
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to evidence of indefeasible title of property in favor of the
recover possession only, not ownership.[13] However, person in whose name the title appears. The title holder
where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the
may pass upon the issue to determine who between or property, including possession, subject only to limits
among the parties has the right to possess the property. imposed by law.[19] In the present case, the
This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding respondents-plaintiffs are indisputably the holders of a
determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the certificate of title against which the petitioners-
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the defendants’ claim of oral sale cannot prevail. As
issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of registered titleholders, they are entitled to possession of
possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, the properties.
being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the
same parties involving title to the property.[14] The c. Claim of Fraud – a Prohibited Collateral Attack
adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of
Registration of land under the Torrens system, aside
ownership.
from perfecting the title and rendering it indefeasible
In the present case, both the petitioners-defendants and after the lapse of the period allowed by law, also renders
the respondents-plaintiffs raised the issue of ownership. the title immune from collateral attack.[20] A collateral
The petitioners-defendants claim ownership based on attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a
the oral sale to and occupation by Gregorio Miranda, different relief and as an incident of the present action,
their predecessor-in-interest, since 1948. On the other an attack is made against the judgment granting the
hand, the respondents-plaintiffs claim that they are the title.[21] This manner of attack is to be distinguished
owners, and their ownership is evidenced by the TCTs in from a direct attack against a judgment granting the title,
their names. Under this legal situation, resolution of through an action whose main objective is to annul, set
these conflicting claims will depend on the weight of the aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment if not
parties' respective evidence, i.e., whose evidence yet implemented, or to seek recovery if the property
deserves more weight. titled under the judgment had been disposed of.[22] To
permit a collateral attack on respondents-plaintiffs’ title
b. Findings of Fact Below – Final and Conclusive is to water down the integrity and guaranteed legal
A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the indefeasibility of a Torrens title.[23]
consideration of factual issues – an exercise that is not The petitioners-defendants’ attack on the validity of
appropriate for the Rule 45 petition that the petitioners- respondents-plaintiffs’ title, by claiming that fraud
defendants filed; under the Rules of Court, the parties attended its acquisition, is a collateral attack on the title.
may raise only questions of law under Rule 45, as the It is an attack incidental to their quest to defend their
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[16] As a rule, we are
possession of the properties in an "accion publiciana," SECTION 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to
not in a direct action whose main objective is to impugn disposition or concession which have been officially
the validity of the judgment granting the title.[24] This delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed,
is the attack that possession of a Torrens Title specifically and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-
guards against; hence, we cannot entertain, much less public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in
accord credit to, the petitioners-defendants’ claim of any manner become private property, nor those on
fraud to impugn the validity of the respondents- which a private right authorized and recognized by this
plaintiffs’ title to their property. Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which,
having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be
d. Claimed Protection under PD 1517
so. However, the President may, for reasons of public
To qualify for protection under PD 1517 and avail of the interest, declare lands of the public domain open to
rights and privileges granted by the said decree, the disposition before the same have had their boundaries
claimant must be: (1) a legitimate tenant of the land for established or been surveyed, or may, for the same
ten (10) years or more; (2) must have built his home on reason, suspend their concession or disposition until
the land by contract; and, (3) has resided continuously they are again declared open to concession or
for the last ten (10) years. The “tenant” covered by PD disposition by proclamation duly published or by Act of
1517 is, as defined under Section 3(f) thereof, "the the National Assembly.
rightful occupant of land and its structures, but does not
SECTION 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural
include those whose presence on the land is merely
purposes can be disposed of only as follows, and not
tolerated and without the benefit of contract, those who
otherwise:
enter the land by force or deceit, or those whose
possession is under litigation." (1) For homestead settlement;
On 30 July 1991, Viray filed an action for annulment of Section 118 of CA 141 states:
sale against the sheriff and MBTC with the RTC of
SECTION 118. Except in favor of the Government or any
Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, Branch 23.Viray
of its branches, units, or instruction, lands acquired
sought the declaration of nullity of the execution sale,
under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be
the sheriffs certificate of sale, the sheriffs deed of final
subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of
conveyance and the TCT's issued by the Register of
the approval of the application and for a term of five
Deeds.
years from and after the date of issuance of the patent
On 21 September 1993, the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City and grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction
rendered its decision in favor of MBTC. of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said
period, but the improvements or crops on the land may
Viray filed an appeal with the CA alleging that the RTC of
be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons,
Cagayan de Oro City committed reversible error in ruling
associations, or corporations.
solely on the issue of redemption instead of the issue of
validity of the auction sale, being the lis mota of the No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead
action. after five years and before twenty-five years after
issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the
On 21 August 2003, the appellate court reversed the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which
decision of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City. The CA ruled
approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and
that the auction sale conducted by the sheriff was null
legal grounds.
and void ab initio since the sale was made during the five-
year prohibition period in violation of Section 118 of In the present case, the three loans were obtained on
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141) or the Public Land separate dates 7 July 1979, 5 June 1981 and 3 September
Act. 1981, or several years before the free patents on the lots
were issued by the government to respondent on 29
MBTC filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
December 1982. The RTC of Manila, in a Decision dated
denied in a Resolution dated 13 February 2004.
28 April 1983, ruled in favor of petitioner ordering the
ISSUE: debtors, including respondent, to pay jointly and
severally certain amounts of money. The public auction
Whether the auction sale falls within the five-year conducted by the sheriff on the lots owned by
prohibition period laid down in Section 118 of CA 141. respondent occurred on 12 October 1984.
HELD: For a period of five years or from 29 December 1982 up
Yes. Petitioner MBTC insists that the five-year prohibition to 28 December 1987, Section 118 of CA 141 provides
period against the alienation or sale of the property that the lots comprising the free patents shall not be
provided in Section 118 of CA 141 does not apply to an made liable for the payment of any debt until the period
obligation contracted before the grant or issuance of the of five years expires. In this case, the execution sale of
free patent or homestead. The alienation or sale stated the lots occurred less than two years after the date of the
issuance of the patents. This clearly falls within the five-
year prohibition period provided in the law, regardless of
the dates when the loans were incurred.