LA TONDENA VS REPUBLIC

- La Tondena Inc applied for registration of 14, 286 sq2 parcel of land alleging
acquisition and possession even before WW2. DENR-CENRO’s report on the
land’s classification as alienable and disposable in 1987 was not formally
offered as evidence before the trial court
- involves application of Sec. 14. (1) Propert Reg. Decree in rel. to Sec. 48b of
CA 141 on the requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles
- they filed petition for review on certiorari of CA decision reversing RTC
decision granting LT application for land regis.
- facts:
o obtained title by purchase from Pablo Rimorin.
 original tracing plan
 technical description of the land
 surveyors cert for regist
 certificate of tax assessment from 1948
 tax declaration
 Secretary’s certificate authorizing Bautista
o DENR-CENRO submitted report to the TC stating that the land was
declared alienable and disposable on 1987
o MTC approved the application for registration
o OSG filed notice of appeal TC decision was contrary to law and
evidence
o LT filed manifestation with Motion to remand case to present further
evidence that the land was private land at the time of acquisition
- they raised the survey plan notation confirming that the land was inside
alienable and disposable area certified on 1934
- assuming that the land was only reclassified on 19787, LT argues that it
acquired a vested right over the land under 1935 Consti that allows private
corporation to acquire alienable land of public domain
o their possession was open, continuous and uninterrupted more than 30
yrs until 1972 prior to the 1978 Consti
- RP counters that Sec. 29 of PD 1529 provides that courts are duty bound to
consider not only the evidence presented by the parties but also the reports
of the Com. of Land Reg. and the Dir. of Lands.
o LT failed to present proof that the land was declared alienable and
disposable on or before June 12, 1945
o LT cannot rely on the notation because it is not a proof required by law
o 30 yrs prescriptive period of RA 1942 and PD 1073 are already
applicable when they filed their application in 2004
- ISSUES:
o WON LT complied with all the requirements for land registration under
Sec. 48 b of CA 141 in rel. to Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529
o WON LT acquired vested right under 1935 Consti
o WON CA can consider the report which was not marked as evidence
- WON LT complied with all the requirements for land registration under Sec.
48 b of CA 141 in rel. to Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529
 o Requirements
 Has been in possession and occupation of the property
 Open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
 Bona fide claim of acquisition
 Possession must take place since 06-12-1945
 Must be agricultural land
o 06-12-45 reckoning point is the date of possession and not to date of
the land classification
- WON LT acquired vested right under 1935 Consti and RA 1942 that
shortened possession to 30 yrs
o Under this Consti – private corporations can still acquire public agri
lands
o Petitioner has not shown any proof of its purchase – all documents
were allegedly burned
o Survey notations are not considered substantive evidence
o RA 1942 was repealed by PD 1073 – applications filed prior to 1977
can invoke RA 1942
- They failed to prove possession since 06-01-1945
o Oldest tax declaration record presented was 1948
o Neither the testimony presented
- Petitioner failed to comply all the requisites for registration.
- PETITION DENIED
REPUBLIC VS ESPINOSA
- This case seeks to nullify CA decision upholding the validity of the original
certificate and transfer of certificate of title respectively issued in the name of
Espinosa and succession in interest Caliston
- on 1955 certificate of title issued to Espinosa and then it was soled to
Caliston on 1976
- the State thru DENR VI Iloilo field complaint for annulment
o the land was inalienable public land because it is within timberland
area certified by Dir. of Forestry
- Spouses Escarda intervened alleging that they have been occupying the
property since 1976 on the belief that it belongs to the state
- They prayed that Caliston be ordered to cease and desist from ejecting the,
o Acc to Espinosa, her title was issued earlier in 1962 while the
classification was 1986
o Escarda does not have personality to file the case
o Asked for exemplary damages
- RTC ruled in favor of the State – ordered reversion of the property back to
the public domain
- Caliston filed for Notice of appeal
o TC improperly relied in the LC map
o She insisted that her land is situated in an area indicated as alienable
and disposable
 o CA upheld the validity of the land titles under the names of espinosa
and caliston
- ISSUE: WON THE STATE HAS SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT THE PROPERTY
IS PART OF INALIENABLE FOREST LAND AT THE TIME ESPINOSA WAS
GRANTED THE CADASTRAL DECREE AND ISSUED TITLE. (NO)
- RULING:
o PETITION DENIED
o The state failed to prove that the property was classified as forest land
at the time of the grant of the cadastral decree and issuance of title to
Espinosa
o In Land registration proceedings – the applicant has the burden of
overcoming the presumption of state ownership
o It must prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable or
disposable based on a positive act of the government
o State’s remedy is the reversion of the land pursuant to Regalian
doctrine, to revert the land back to the mass of the public domain
 Proper when the public land is fraudulently awarded and
disposed
 Eg. When person obtains title under PLA w/c includes oversight,
lands w/c cannot be registered under Torrens system or the Dir.
Of Lands did not have jurisdiction because it is a public domain
 Their only argument is that the property was unlawfully included
in the CT because it is of the public domain
 The state has the burden to prove that there was an oversight
 The classification map they were insisting was not formally
offered in evidence
 This is to give the adverse party the opportunity to
examine and oppose the evidence presented.
o The reclassification of the area where the property is located should
not prejudice Espinos and her successor in interest
o To allow reversion based on a classification made at the time when the
property was already declared private property by virtue of a decree
would be akin to expropriation without due process.
o Furthermore, the court ruled that the land classification map cannot be
considered as evidence because it is excluded under the best evidence
rule.
 The rule of admissibility must be applied uniformly, including the
Government. It cannot have a superior advantage. The state s
as bound by the rules on formal offer of evidence as much as
the private party.
- PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI WAS DENIED

REPUBLIC VS TANDUAY
- Petition for review on certiorari assailing RTC decision granting the SPECIAL
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES of the respondents and dismissing the
 COMPLAINT FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE/REVERSION on the grounds of
equitable estoppel and laches
- FACTS:
o By virtue of free patent, in 1987, a OCT was issued and registered in
the name of San Pedro. After his death, Francisco executed an affidavit
of self adjudication declaring that he was the sole heir of the patentee
o Francisco sold the property to Tanduay Lumber. Then it caused the
subdivision of the subject lot into 2 in the name of Capati then he
transferred it to Winston Capati. Lot A was subdivided into 2 registered
in the name of Verbo Realty and the other to Winston
o Lot B-1 was sold to Sps. Clemente and Garcia B-2,6-8; then Lot B-4 to
Miranda then he sold it to Artienda
o Garcia sps sold it to Chan sps.
o There were 9 parties involved: TANDUAY LUMBER INC, SPOUSES
CLEMENTE, GARCIA, ARTIENDA, SPOUSES CHAN, LIBUNAO,
MELCHOR, ARMADO AND CAPATI
o RTC granted the special affirmative defense of the defendants and
cancelled the reversion
- ISSUE:
o WON THE PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT FOR REVERSION AND
CANCELLATION OF TITLES IS BARRED BY ESTOPPEL AND LACHES
- RULING:
o RA 11231 or the AGRICULTURAL FREE PATENT REFORM ACT rendered
this issue moot and academic -> hence it ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events
o The removal of restrictions under Sec. 118-221 of CA 141 was given
effect under Sec. 4 of RA 11231
o The State’s complaint for reversion was based solely on Sec. 118 of CA
141. Since the restriction on the conveyance, transfer or disposition of
the patented land subject of this case within five years from and after
the issuance of the patent pursuant to Section 118 of CA 141 has been
removed and the title of the patentee Epifania San Pedro is, under RA
11231, now considered as title in fee simple, which is not subject to
any restriction on alienation or encumbrance, the Government no
longer has any legal basis to seek the reversion or reconveyance of the
subject land.
o Should be given prospective effect
o PETITION WAS DENIED

BARTOLATA VS REPUBLIC
- Petition for review on certiorari assailing decision denying the petitioner’s
claim for just compensation
- FACTS
 o Bartolata acquired ownership over a 400sqm parcel of land in Taguig
by virtue of an Order of Award from Bureau of Lands. He was the sole
bidder for the property during public auction
o In 1997, the respondents acquired 223 sqm of Bartolata’s property
doer the development of the Metro Manila Skyway Project. The parties
agreed in exchange of just compensation for the apprised value of the
property fixed at 55k per sqm or 12,265,000. Petitioner demanded fro
the 10M balance of the respondents, but refused to settle.
o Respondents argued Sec. 112 of CA 141, the govt is entitled to an
easement of right of way not exceeding 60mts in width without the
need of payment of just compensation, save for the value of
improvements existing
o any payment for the government's use of the easement, unless made
to compensate the landowner for the value of the improvements
affected, is unwarranted. And the State prayed for the return of the
partial payment
o Easement of Right of Way – ownership will not vest to the
owner of the mining area. They merely uses the area
temporarily for the purposes of more convenient mining
operations, in exchange of just compensation
o petitioner contended PD 2004 w/c amended RA 730. Respondents,
however, countered that petitioner could not have beneBted from PD
2004 since the removal of restrictions and encumbrances contained in
PD 2004 only applies to public land sold by the government for
residential purposes without public auction, whereas petitioner was
awarded the subject property through a public auction sale.
- RTC & CA
o Further upholding the government's right to enforce against
petitioner's property the easement for public highways without cost,
the CA granted respondents' counterclaim on appeal. The CA noted
that the portion of petitioner's property that was used by respondents
corresponds to the widths of 13.92 meters and 13.99 meters, well
within the 60-meter limit under CA 141. Given that respondents never
exceeded the threshold width, and that petitioner never established
that there were improvements in his property that were affected, the
CA held that petitioner is not entitled to any form of compensation.
Consequently, the CA ordered him to return the partial payment made,
lest he be unjustly enriched by respondents' use of the legal easement
that under the law should have been free of charge.
- ISSUE:
o WON the subject property owned by petitioner is subject for
easement of right of way n favor of the govt.
- RULING
o The easement of right of way in favor of the government subsists
despite the enactment of PD 2004 In resolving the first issue, the
Court rejects petitioner's claim that the subject property is no longer
subject to the 60 meter width easement of right of way in favor of the
 government. First, no less than the Order of Award granting petitioner
title over the subject property reads that the parcel of land conferred
to him is subject to the restrictions contained under Sec. 109-114 of
CA 141, which necessarily includes the easement provided in Sec. 112.
Notably, petitioner was awarded the subject property in 1987, while
PD 2004, which allegedly removed all encumbrances and restrictions
from awarded properties, was signed into law much earlier in 1985.
This alone raises suspicion on the applicability of PD 2004 to the
subject property
o Second, the Court finds no reversible error in the RTC and CA's
interpretation of the coverage of PD 2004 and RA 730. The title of RA
730 itself supports the rulings of the courts a quo that the laws
petitioner relied upon only cover the sale of public lands for residential
purposes and to qualified applicants without public auction.
o Republic Act No. 730 - An Act To Permit The Sale Without Public
Auction Of Public Lands Of The Republic Of The Philippines For
Residential Purposes To Qualified Applicants Under Certain Conditions
o It can readily be inferred from the title of RA 730 that the definite
ambit of the law could not be extended to sales of public lands via
public auction, through which mode of disposition petitioner acquired
the subject property. Consequently, when RA 730 was amended by PD
2004 to the effect of removing encumbrances and restrictions on
purchased properties without public auction, the petitioner could not
have benefitted from the same.
o Lastly, even the contents of RA 730 belie petitioners' claims. The
foremost section of the law reads: Section 1. Notwithstanding the
provisions of sections sixty-one and sixty-seven of Commonwealth Act
Numbered One hundred forty-one, as amended by Republic Act
Numbered Two hundred ninety-three, any Filipino citizen of legal age
who is not the owner of a home lot in the municipality or city in which
he resides and who has in good faith established his residence on a
parcel of the public land of the Republic of the Philippines which is not
needed for the public service, shall be given preference to purchase at
a private sale of which reasonable notice shall be given to him not
more than one thousand square meters at a price to be fixed by the
Director of Lands with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources.
o It shall be an essential condition of this sale that the occupants have
constructed his house on the land and actually resided therein. Ten per
cent of the purchase price shall be paid upon the approval of the sale
and the balance may be paid in full, or in ten equal annual
instalments.

CAPISTRANO VS LIMCUANDO
- FACTS
o Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of RTC regarding
the action for annulment of deed of sale or for the repurchase of real
property
o Petitioner owned a parcel of land, with an estimated area of 224 sqm
located in Laguna, covered by Original Certificate of Title pursuant to a
Free Patent issued in 1977. She sold this parcel of land with a right of
repurchase in favor of spouses Zuasola and Subida in 1985.
o 1989, petitioner sold half of the same parcel of land to respondents for
the price of 75k on the understanding that respondents shall pay the
amount of 10k as partial payment and the balance to be paid by
monthly installments. Petitioner received the partial payment of 10k
but signed a deed of absolute sale disposing half of the property in
favor of respondents purportedly in consideration of the amount
received. Petitioner demanded for the payment of the balance, but
they refused to pay and they claimed that they had already paid.
o Respondents learned afterwards that the disputed land had been
previously sold by the petitioner to the spouses Zuasola and Subida
which led respondents to file a criminal complaint for estafa.
o 1991, petitioner repurchased the parcel of land from the spouses
Zuasola and Subida. She also offered to repurchase from respondents
the portion of the disputed land which she sold but they refused.
Transfer of CT over the disputed land was issued in the names of
respondents.
o 1993, petitioner filed a complaint for the annulment of the subject
deed of sale alleging that the sale was a nullity from the beginning and
that respondents even assailed its validity in the previously mentioned
criminal case for estafa against petitioner.
o RTC sustained the validity of the subject deed of sale and denied the
repurchase
o As an alternative cause of action, petitioner sought to repurchase the
disputed land from respondents based on Section 119 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act).
- Issue
o WON THE PETITIONER MAY STILL REPURCHASE THE LAND
UNDER SEC. 119 OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT.
- Ruling
o PETITION WAS DEVOID OF MERIT
- No. Petitioner’s action for annulment of the subject deed should be dismissed based on
Article1397 of the Civil Code which provides that the person who employed fraud cannot
base his action for the annulment of contracts upon such flaw of the contract. Also, it is
important to stress that the ultimate objective of the Public Land Act is "to promote public
policy, that is, to provide home and decent living for destitutes, aimed at providing a
class of independent small and holders which is the bulwark of peace and order.
- Our prevailing jurisprudence requires that the motive of the patentee, his widow,
or legal heirs in the exercise of their right to repurchase a land acquired through patent
or grant must be consistent with the noble intent of the Public Land Act. We held in a
 number of cases that the right to repurchase of a patentee should fail if his underlying
cause is contrary to everything that the Public Land Act stands for.

AGUSTINO VS CA
- Petition involves 3 hectares of parcel of land forming part of a sixteen
hectare homestead which was originally covered by OCT issued in accordance
with the provisions of CA 141 on Homesteads in favor of Loren, 1925. 32
years after Loren’s death, his heirs, herein petitioners, executed affidavit of
adjucation over the parcel of land and obtained transfer of CT.
- In 19337, respondents had acquired the same parcel of land from Luarca
who in tunr acquired the property from Loren.
- Appellate court awarded the parcel of land to the respondents and ordered
cancellation of other titles of the same land.
- But the sale to Luarca was within the 5 year prohibition against alienation of
homesteads, he took possession of it in 1937
- 1953 – heir of Loren executed affidavit of adjucation, prior to this he and the
respondents had agreement to pay 500 pesos a hectare of the land but they
failed to pay
- As alleged by the respondents, other parcels of the 3 hectare land were sold
to different persons. From 1962, the respondents remained in possession of
the land
- In 1967, petitioners sold parcel of land which covered by the respondents’
area which they bought from Pastrana (bought from Loren after the 5 yr
prohibiton)
- The new owners (Sotto and Villavicencio) were able to oust the respondents
- Respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and damages
- RTC
o Parcel B was awarded to the petitioners because the sale between
Loren and Luarca is null and void
- CA
o Parcel A was awarded to the respondents because of the heirs of
Loren’s inaction; hence they lost their right to claim the land
- ISSUE: WON ERRED IN HOLDING THE DEFENSE OF LACHES
- WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the defense of
laches can be set up against the petitioner-heirs who are presumed by law to
have continued possession of the land from the time their grandfather,
Loren, acquired the same in 1926 until the time when they, themselves,
acquired title thereto by virtue of succession.
- Rule of equity and doctrine of pari delicto cannot be used as an argument
o Rule of equity cannot be set up against clear provisions of law based
on public policy. Sale of homestead within 5-year prohibition period is
void and it cannot be ratified.
o Pari delicto the right of homestead was granted by the State, it cannot
be waived.
- Court ruled that it is up to the government WON petitioners should retain
ownership of the land
- PETITION WAS GRANTED.