Case 123

G.R. No. L-50236 August 29, 1980

SPOUSES RODOLFO YABUT LEE and LYDIA LISCANO, applicants-appellees, 
vs.
FLORENCIO P. PUNZALAN, oppositor-appellant.

 May 14, 1968, spouses Rodolfo and Lydia filed before the Court of First Instance of
Tarlac (Branch III) an application for the registration of two parcels of land 
 the trial Court issued an Order of General Default since no opposition was filed
 November 26, 1968, appellant Florencio Punzalan filed a "Petition for Reopening and/or
Review" Claiming that he is the owner of the house that stood on the lot, and that the
spouses committed fraud in not disclosing the application 
 The court denied claiming that no decision was to be reopened at the moment

Issue: 
1. WON the denial was proper. Yes
2. WON the order of general default may be lifted. Yes

Held: yes, a petition for review under the aforequoted provision "may be filed at any time after
the rendition of the Court's Decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the
final decree of registration.

In the case at bar, no judgment has as yet been rendered by the lower Court, and much less
has any decree of registration been issued. The fixing of a Petition for Reopening and/or Review
by appellant, therefore, is decidedly premature. Indeed, in the absence of any decision and/or
decree, there is nothing to be reviewed or reopened.

Yes. An Order of General Default is interlocutory in character, subject to the control of the Court,
and may be modified or amended as the Court may deem proper at any time prior to the
rendition of the final judgment.

Case 124
G.R. No. L-38387               January 29, 1990
HILDA WALSTROM, petitioner-appellant, 
vs.
FERNANDO MAPA, JR., VICTORINO A. MAPA, MARIA C.M. DE GOCO, FERNANDO
MAPA, III, MARIO L. MAPA, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF
BENGUET, respondents-appellees.

 Hilda claims that long before World War II, Cacao Dianson, predecessor-in-interest of
Gabriela Walstrom, filed a Free Patent Application (FPA) for a parcel of land
 April 10, 1933 the Free Patent was issued 
 Dianson was claiming ownership of a land designated as Portion "A" of Lot 1, Psu-
153657, however, the mapas alleged that the land was already awarded to Josefa
Abaya Mapa in the public bidding held in 1934.
 the controversy between Cacao Dianson and Josefa Abaya Mapa with respect to the
disputed property was referred to Bureau of Lands Investigator 
  The petition filed by Walstrom was never decided upon, and without exhausting the
proper administrative remedies, filed a petition with the Supreme Court claiming that the
1 year period is about to lapse

Issue: may the case be reopened 

Held: no
a decree of registration may be reopened or reviewed by the proper Regional Trial Court upon
the concurrence of five essential requisites, to wit: (a) that the petitioner has a real and a
dominical right; (b) that he has been deprived thereof;(c) through fraud; (d) that the petition is
filed within one year from the issuance of the decree; and (e) that the property has not as yet
been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. 

Hilda should have pressed for the speedy resolution of her petition with the DANR. Also,
notwithstanding the irrevocability of the Torrens title already issued in the name of another
person, the latter can still be compelled under the law to reconvey the subject property to the
rightful owner After all, the Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who had
committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith. 

Case 125
G.R. No. L-38185 September 24, 1986
HILARIO RAMIREZ and VALENTINA BONIFACIO, petitioners, 
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FRANCISCA MEDINA, MATILDE MARTIN, EMILIO
MARTIN, DELFIN GUINTO, TEOFILO GUINTO, PRUDENCIO GUINTO and MARGARITA
GUINTO, respondents. 

 On September 15,1959, petitioners-spouses Hilario Ramirez and Valentina Bonifacio

filed an application for registration of a parcel of riceland in Pamplona, Las Pinas Rizal. 
 After notice and publication nobody appeared to oppose the application. 
 An order of general default was issued and the court allowed the petitioners to present
evidence in support of their claim.
 Petitioners claim that they purchased the land from Gregorio Pascual during the early
part of the American regime but the corresponding contract of sale was lost and no copy
or record of the same was available.
 Consequently a title was issued in their names 
 On 1960, the heirs of Agapita Bonifacio filed a petition to review the decree of
registration on the ground of fraud. 
 They claim that Gregoria Pascual (sister of Agapita) previously owned the land in
question as evidenced by Tax Declaration
 The spouses denied the claims and based their claim to the land on two deeds of sale
which they allegedly found accidentally in March 1960. Lol

Issue: may the decree be reviewed on the ground of actual and extrinsic fraud. 

Held: yes
Once public land is registered with the Register of Deeds and the corresponding certificate and
owner's duplicate title is issued, such land is deemed registered land. It is brought within the
scope and operation of the Land Registration Law.
The land in this case having been registered and covered by an original certificate of title issued
by the Register of Deeds of Rizal, it is within the provisions of the Land Registration Act. Thus,
the decree of registration granted by the lower court in favor of the petitioners may be reviewed
on the ground of actual and extrinsic fraud pursuant to Section 38 of the same Act.

The case was reopened and it was discovered that the spouses were merely antichretic
creditors. The petitioners are not possessors in the concept of owner but mere holders placed in
possession of the land by its owners. Thus, their possession cannot serve as a title for acquiring
dominion. 

Case 126
G.R. No. L-19147-48          December 28, 1963
ALBINO NICOLAS, ET AL., applicants-respondents, 
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, oppositor, 
GUILLERMO CAMUNGAO, petitioner-appellant.

 1951, Albino Nicolas filed an application to register under the Torrens System
 Eusebio Coloma, also applied for registration (of different lots) 
 Guillermo Camungao opposed the application of both Albino's and Eusebio's for their
applications on their corresponding "lots 2"
 The Provincial Fiscal, representing the Director of Lands, filed an opposition to the
applications claiming that it is public land
 A hearing was subsequently held, with notice thereof, sent only to the Provincial Fiscal,
as representative of the Director of Lands. 
 No notice to Guillermo Camungao, was given
 Judgment was rendered in favor of the 2 applicants (Albino and Eusebio) 
 Guillermo only came to know of the hearings and judgment when he was furnished with
a decision

Issue: WON the case may be reopened? 

Held: yea bois

The written appearance with opposition presented by petitioner herein, on November 7, 1951
(R.A.) was a valid one, and sufficient to give him a legal standing in court and would entitle him
to notice, as a matter of right. 

The lower court erred in having chosen to ignore the written appearance with opposition, which
was a substantial compliance with the law, that requires a formal answer.

Perhaps, the trial judge had reasons to doubt the veracity of the supposed fraudulent acts,
attributed to respondents. This doubt, however, should not have been made the basis of
dismissal, because if a court doubts the veracity of the allegations in the petition, the best thing
it could do, would have been to deny the motion to dismiss and proceed with the hearing on the
merits of the petition. 

Case 127
G.R. No. L-24426 July 25, 1974
ROSALINA Z. TIONGCO, petitioner, 
vs.
GUILLERMO DE LA MERCED and RITA VENERACION, respondents.

 a petition for review of a cadastral decree covering Lots 1838 and 1856 of the Sta. Rosa
Cadastre, Nueva Ecija in Cadastral Case No. 67 was filed by Vda. de Cuaycong v. Vda.
de Sengbengco.
 Respondents Guillermo de la Merced and Rita Veneracion were found by the Court of
Appeals to be innocent purchasers for value (short case lang talaga) 

Issue: whether under the circumstance of there being an innocent purchaser for value, there
could still be a review of a decree of registration?

Held: no

Clearly, Rita Veneracion and Guillermo de la Merced are innocent purchasers of Lots 1838 and
1856, and as such protected by the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 of the Land Registration
Act.

Under the law once the 1 year period had lapsed, the title can no longer be contested. Petitioner
Tiongco can no longer question the title of respondents Guillermo and Rita. 

Case 128 
G.R. No. L-21814 July 15, 1975

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, 

vs.
MELECIO ABANZADO, ET AL., claimants. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, claimant-
appellant, vs. PERPETUO SILVA, ET AL., claimants-appellees.

 The trial court rendered judgment adjudicating Lot No. 6034 to the spouses Perpetuo
Silva and Juana Divinagracia
 The Director of Forestry filed an appeal to review the decision and argues that the land
in question was part of a communal forestland situated at Pamplona, Negros Oriental
 private respondents opposed the appeal and argued that no extrinsic fraud was alleged
and that the Director of Forestry was barred by estoppel or laches
 the appeal was taken directly to the Supreme Court on a question of law raising the
constitutional issues of absence of a hearing

Issue: should the case be reopened on the ground that there was an absence of a hearing

Held: yeszz
In addition to the lack of respect for the requirements of procedural due process, there was on
the part of the lower court a disregard of a basic state policy. The Constitution then in force, as
is similarly the case with the present Charter, was quite explicit on the point of forest resources
being inalienable. That is a paramount state objective.

Indubitably, there should be conservation of the natural resources of the Philippines. The
prodigality of the spendthrift who squanders his substance for the pleasure of the fleeting
moment must be restrained for the less spectacular but surer policy which protects Nature's
wealth for future generations. Such is the wise stand of our Government as represented by the
Director of Forestry. 

Forestland are part of public domain and thus inalienable, and may not be acquired through
prescription. 

Case 129 
G.R. No. L-31189 March 31, 1987
MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS, petitioner, 
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, NORMA LEUENBERGER and FRANCISCO SOLIVA,
respondents.

 Deceased Gonzalo Ditching owns a sugar land located in Bo. Madaniog, Victorias,
Negros Occidental
 He was survived by granddaughter, respondent Norma Leuenberger. 
 Respondent Norma Leuenberger, married to Francisco Soliva, inherited the whole of
Lot. 
 She donated a portion of her Lot to the municipality for the ground of a certain high
school. 
 She discovered that the parcel of land, more or less 4 hectares, was used by Petitioner
Municipality of Victorias, as a cemetery from 1934, is within her property. 
 Respondent wrote the Mayor of Victorias regarding her discovery, demanding payment
of past rentals and requesting delivery of the area allegedly illegally occupied by
Petitioner.
 Mayor claimed that Petitioner bought the land, but was unable to present the deed of
sale
 1964, Norma and Francis filed an action for the recovery of possession of the parcel of
land occupied by the municipal cemetery 
 The court decided in favor of the municipality 

Issue: WON respondents are estopped from questioning the possession and ownership of
herein petitioner which dates back to more than 30 years.

Held: yez
In lieu of a Deed of Sale, petitioner presented a certificate issued by the Archives Division of the
Bureau of Records Management in Manila, which reflected the sale. 

Also, In the case at bar it is undisputed that petitioner had been in open, public, adverse and
continuous possession of the land for a period of more than thirty years. In fact, according to the
municipal treasurer there are over 1000 graves in the cemetery.

Case 130
G.R. No. L-29596 October 14, 1977
JULIAN JR., SERGIO, PEDRO, LUIS and MONICA, all surnamed RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, 
vs.
SABINA TORENO, TIMOTEO TORENO, GLICERIA BOCASE ALEJANDRO BOCASE
BENJAMIN CAMPOREDONDO, SIMPLICIA BOCASE PEDRO DOCASE BERNARDO
BIENVENIDO DOCASE GREGORIA BOCASE and THE FUW DIVISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, MANELA, nts.

 Valentine Quiñones owned a parcel of land in Davao City with an area of 39,043 square
meters
 Valentine was survived by her children, who are dead narin
 The land was brought for registration before a cadastral court in 1922 and the Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-15 was issued on August 7, 1950 in the name of 26 petitioners
 An action for ejectment was filed against petitioner and the court subsequent granted the
same
 Petitioner filed an appeal and argued the he had been in open, continous, and notorious
possession of the land

Issue: whether the existence of a decree of registration is a bar to an action filed after one year
from the issuance of the decree to compel reconveyance of the property in question

Held: nope
the prevailing rule in this jurisdiction does not bar a landowner whose property was wrongfully or
erroneously registered under the Torrens system from bringing an action, after one year from
the issuance of the decree for the reconveyance of the property in question. 

Such an action does not aim or purport to re-open the rginstration Proceeding and set aside the
decree of registration, but only to show that the person who the registration of the questioned
property is not the real owner thereof.

However, since the petitioner was not able to provide or show evidence of the sale, his claim
cannot be favored by the court. The contracts provided for by the petitioner were merely
contracts of loan. 

Case 131 
G.R. No. 108547 February 3, 1997

FELICIDAD VDA. DE CABRERA, MARYJANE CABRERA and FELICIDAD TEOKEMIAN,

petitioners, 
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and VIRGILIA ORAIS DE FELICIO, represented by her Attorney-in-
Fact, ERNESTO M. ORAIS, respondents.

 1950, a Deed of Sale was executed by Daniel Teokemian and Albertana Teokemian in
favor of Andres Orais over a parcel of unregistered land situated at Abejod, Cateel,
Davao Oriental
 Virgilia Orais, daughter of Andres, was issued Free Patent No. V-79089 and Original
Certificate of Title No. P-10908. 
 1974 and 1974 Virgilia Orais' brothers, Rodolfo and Jimmy Orais went to Cateel, Davao
Oriental and confronted the Cabreras of the latter's alleged encroachment and illegal
occupation of Virgilia's lot
 no concrete action on the matter was pursued by Virgilia Orais until February 11, 1988
when she filed and ejectment case against the Cabreras
  The trial court and court of appeals ordered the ejectment of the Cabreras, who then
appealed to the SC

Issue: WON the Cabreras were barred to recover the land due to laches.

Held: no
An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes
in ten years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the
issuance of the certificate of title over the property, but this rule applies only when the plaintiff or
the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to
be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, as the defendant is in the instant
case, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does
not prescribe. 

A person who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may
wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his
right. 

The action for reconveyance (quieting of title) of the plaintiff was instituted only in 1988, that is,
thirty years from the time the plaintiff's husband was able to acquire Certificate of Title covering
the properties. 

Felicidad vda. De Cabrera and her late husband have been actively in possession of the same,
tilling it, and constructing an irrigation system thereon. 

Case 132 
G.R. No. L-46410 October 30, 1981
ERNESTO BALBIN, JOSE ORIÑA, MAURICIO NARAG, ROSA STA. MA. SYTAMCO,
BASILIO SYTAMCO, LEOCADIO SYTAMCO, AMADO V. REYES, LYDIA V. REYES and
APOLINARIO REYES, Petitioners, 
vs. 
PEDRO C. MEDALLA and JOSEFINA MEDALLA and LINO BARBOSA, Judge of the Court
of First Instance of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, Respondents.chanrobles virtual l

 Private respondents on June 19, 1962, purchased from the heirs of Juan Ladao, a large
parcel of agricultural land situated at Sitios of Bacong. 
 Respondents applied for registration of title and presented as evidence of ownership, the
Deed of sale, and tax declarations. 
 The application for registration of title aforesaid was opposed by petitioners on the
ground that they were previously issued Original Certificates of title thru either
Homestead or Free Patent
 The court granted the opposition and an Original Certificate of Title was issued to Juan
Ladao
 Private respondents filed an appeal claiming that petitioner’s patent was fraudulent 
 Petitioners then claimed that even assuming so,  under the law, all grants of Spanish
titles to lands including possessory information titles must be registered within a period
of one (1) year to be counted from April 17, 1894 until April 17, 1895, in accordance with
Article 80 of the rules and regulations implementing said Royal Decree of February 13,
1894, which the respondents did not do. 
Issue: whether the present action for reconveyance has already prescribed, as provided for
under the Royal Decree

Held: yes, but not under the Royal Decree. 

The cause of action for reconveyance had already prescribed because such action can only be
instituted within four (4) years after discovery of the alleged fraud.

Plaintiffs' complaint was filed only on August 30, 1973, or more than 14 years had already
elapsed from the date of the issuance of the respective titles of the defendants. 

An action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of
limitations, which requires that the action shall be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of
the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place when the petitioners herein were
issued original certificate of title through either homestead or free patent grants, for the
registration of said patents constitute constructive notice to the whole worldtents constitute
constructive notice to the whole world.