Feb.

G.R. No. 176022, February 02, 2015

G.R. No. 174581, February 04, 2015
G.R. No. 193225, February 09, 2015
G.R. No. 194488, February 11, 2015
G.R. No. 154262, February 11, 2015
G.R. No. 201931, February 11, 2015
G.R. No. 212277, February 11, 2015
G.R. No. 203133, February 18, 2015
G.R. No. 204672, February 18, 2015
G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015
G.R. No. 174161, February 18, 2015
G.R. No. 175863, February 18, 2015
G.R. No. 187930, February 23, 2015
G.R. No. 205867, February 23, 2015

G.R. No. 176022, February 02, 2015

Republic vs Cecilia Grace L. Roasa

TOPIC: Land Title and Deeds

FACTS: Respondent in her application for registration of title over a parcel of land, contends
that she is the owner of the subject lot. She acquired the same by purchase as evidenced by
a Deed of Sale.

The said property is an agricultural land by her predecessors in interest. Both the
Predecessors in Interest and the Respondent had been in open, continous, exclusive,
notorious and uninterupted possession and occupation of the land since the 1930's and
that they have declared the land for taxation purposes.

The Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG, opposed the said application and
contended that the acquisition of such land is invalid and not subject to private
appropriation.

The RTC denied the application, their contention was the subject land was
declared as not part of the Forest land of the Government before MArch 15, 1982 or short of
more or less seven (7) years of the required adverse possession of thirty (30) years.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision contending that the respondent met
the basic requirements for one to apply for a registration of title over a parcel of land.

ISSUE: Whether or not the application for registration of title over a parcel of land is
meritorious.

RULING: In the present case, there is no dispute that the subject lot has been declared
alienable and disposable on March 15, 1982. This is more than eighteen (18) years before
respondents, application for registration, which was filed on December 15, 2000.
 An application for original registration of title based on a claim of exclusive and
continous possession or occupation must show the existence of the following:

A. Open, Continous, Exclusive and Notorious Possession, by

themselves or through their predecessors in interest, of land;

B. The land possessed or occupied must have been declared

alienable and disposable agricultural land of public domain;

C. The possession or occupation must have been under a

bonafide claim of ownership;

D. Possession of property dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Also, there were unchallegened testimonies of two (2) respondents witnesses

established that the latter and her predecessors in interest had been in open, continious,
exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of owner even before June 12, 1945.

G.R. No. 174581, February 04, 2015

Atty. Leo N. Caubang V. Jesus Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo

TOPIC: Credit Transaction (Publication of Sale and Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage).

FACTS: Spouses Crisologo obtained an Express Loan from PDCP Development Bank, Inc.
On December 17, 1993. The following year, January 26, 1994 they acquired another loan
from the same bank, wherein a term loan of P1,500,000.00 is covered by a loan agreement.

As a security fro both loans, the Sps mortgaged their property. Upon release of
the term loan, they were given 2 promissory notes. February 9, 1994 for the amount of
P500,000.00 and on February 21, 1994 for the remaining amount.

Although they were able to pay the Express loan, the spouses defaulted in the
amortizations, Despite several demands, the spouses still failed to pay.

On June 8, 1998, Petitioner prepared the notices of Sale, announcing the

Foreclosure of the real estate mortgaged and sale of the mortgaged property at public
auction.

On August 1, 2000, The Davao, RTC rendered a decision nullifying the

extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage for failure to comply with the
publication requirement.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Davao Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Petitioner followed the proper procedure in the posting of Notice
of Sale as required for publication in the sale and foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.

RULING: The Petition lacks merit, The Petitioner did not follow the correct procedure in the
publication of Sale and Foreclosure of a Real Estate Mortgage.

Under Section 3 of Act No. 3135 it reiterated that the Notice shall be published
once a week for at least three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
the municipality and/or city.

In the Present case, Petitioner never made an effort to inquire as to whether the
Oriental Daily Examiner was indeed a newspaper of general circulation, as required by law.

The principal object of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is not to notify

the mortgagor as to inform the public generally of the nature and condition of the property
to be sold, and of the time, place, and terms of the sale.

Notices are given to secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice of property. Statutory
provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage foreclosure sales must strictly be
complied with. FAilure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in compliance with the
statutory requirements constitutes a defect and any substantial error in a notice of sale will
render the it insufficient and will consequently vitiate the sale.