Eagle Realty Corp, v. Republic GR No. V514245 July 4, 2008 Facks: Petitioners assail the decision promulugated the CA which annulled the OCT. Eagle Realty had purchased properky which had been encumbered with foutty title, particularly that the vendor had obtarned such Land through a jal8ijfrcation of records in the Land Registration Commission. The true owners of the property Learned of the fraud. and was thus able to annul the sad title. Issue: Whether in this case, Eagle Realty were purchasers in good. fatth Ruling: No, a realhy cor por ation engaged an the buying as selling o} real estate is to be expected as to cnerci8e a higher standard of care and diligence in ascertarning any dejects as regards to the title °4 a property subject to it's transaction. Petitroners were negligent in this case and thus the petitron was denied.Kabayan v. Repu blic GR No, L 33307 August 30, 1973 Facks: The present case Skarted with an ackion fer r egal detainer jiled in the mun ice pal court of Alcala, PangaSinan on April 20, 1967 and docketcd ktherern aS Civil Case No, 246, The plainktif waS Vicente Kaya ban, one of the petitioners herein, the other petitioner being his wife Florentina Lagasca Kagaban and the defendants were the Spouses Ben jamin Orpindo and Leonila Aguilar Orpindo. The property involved was Lot No. %, one of Several Lots covered ay OGT. No Pi24 un the plaints }'s name, Another title, 0GT No PF 1215, covereng other Lots, was in the name °4 his we fe Florentina, and both were iSSued way back on September 2, 1956 a3 a result of free patent applications filed by them in 1%55, On July 12, 1967, just bejore the hearing of the illegal dctauncr caSc was terminated in the municrpal couré, the Orpindo Spouses, together with Ruca Whiteng Vda. de Kagaban and her children, fited a complaint agarnst the Kayaban spouses in the Court o} First InStance of Pangasinan jor reconveyance of Lot No 4, which complaint was dockcted aS Civil Case No Ul022, Sometime Later theilbegal detarncr case was decided adversely to the plauntid j, who thereupon appealed to the Court of FrrStL Instance, where the case was dockcted as Civil Case No. UlO34, Skill later, upon a Letter complaint to the Solicutor General's Of fuce by the Lawyer for the Or pindos, the said Of fece filed, on December \7, 1968, an action Or annulment oj the two free patent titles of the Kayabans and for reversion of the Lands covered thereby to the State. The case was docketed a3 Case No U2080, The three cases UlO22, Ul034 and W2080 were consolidated and tried jointly before respondent court, which rendered its decision on July 31, 1970, Case No, wUlo22, or reconveyance, was dismssed and the property involved therein was declarcd to be the “absolute and exclusive property o} defendant Vicente Kayaban. * Case No, U2034, for illegal detainer, was decided in favor of the plaintil } therecn Vicente Kayaban and the de jondants were ordered to vacate the Land and fo pay monthly rentals thereon until posseSsion was finally restored to the plaintij} The Lands covered by the two kitles were xsnherited by Vicente Kaya ban and his coheirs from ther jather and common predecessor in interest, Gabriel Kayaban, whose Last will was admitted to probate in1923, After the properties were partitioned, Vicente Kayaban acquired the shares of his coheirs by purchase and afterwards he and his wije applicd for and obtained the wo free patent kithes in question. The respondent court recognized and declared the petitroners to be the right Jul and cnclusive owners of the properticS covered by the said tithes and denied the Solicitor General’ $ prayer that they be reverted to the State, but nevertheless declared the trtles null and void on the ground that Since the owners had acquired the propertues partly by inheritance jrom their father and the rest 4 purchase from their coheirs, and their father had been in posseSsxon thereo} jor many yearS te jore them the Lands were no Longer public and hence not Sub ject to ai Spositron by the government under the Public Land Act. The procedure that should have been JoLlowed, Said the court, was judicial con jermat ion oj an iumper eck tithe and not administrative Legalizakvon thereof through patent application. Issue: May OS6, upon Ehe recommendation of the Director of Lands, bring an acktron assailing a cerkijicate of title isSued pursuant Lo a fraudulently acquired free patentRuling: Since if was the Director of Lands who processed and approved the applications oj the appellants and who ordered the {S3uance of the corresponding jree patents in their favor in his capacity as admins Strator of the disposable Lands of the public domain, the action Jor annulment should have been initiated by him or at Least wth hs prior author ity and consent A jrouduLentlg acquired jree patent may only be assailed by the government in an action for reversion.Yak juco Ye Republic GR No, 168661, October 26, 2007 Facts: In ‘4473, Fermina Castro feted an application fer the registration and confirmation of her title over a parcel of Land with an arca of 17, 343 Square meterS Located in the Municepality of Paranaque, Provence of Rizal (now Paranague City), in the PaSig-Rizal Court of First Instance (CFI), The application was opposed by the Office 04 the Solicitor Gencral (OSG) and by Mercedes Dizon. Castro won the case He then sold it to the petitioner o thiS case who then obtained a tck un his name, Petitioner Subdivided the Land to two Lots, one jor him and the other to petitioner Carpio. PD 1085 waS issued in ‘477, Thus, DEA undertook the conStruction of the Manila Costal Road, AS ths was being planned, the petitioner discovered that the road would directhy ge Ehrough their proper by and that they owned a portion of the land sold by PEA. = Which prompted the petitioner to jite a complaint jor the removal of cloud on the tithe and annulment of the Sale with damages. 13sue: Whether the Complaint for Annulment and Cancellation of Decree No N-150412 and itsDerivative TWwktles is proper. Ruling: When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure became ef fective on July 4, 1497, it incorporated Rule *7 on annulment of judgments or penal orders and resolutions of the RTCS The two grounds jor annulment under Sec 2, Rule *7 are cukrinSic fraud and Lack of juresdickion, yj based on extrinsic frauds the action must be filed we thin four cH) years from its discovery, and i} based on Lack of jertsdictron, bejore it iS barred by laches or eStoppel as provided by Seckion 3, Rule 47, Thus, e} fective July Vy, 4997, any ackion for rever 3ion of public Land instituted by the Government waS already covercd by Rule 47, The unstant Civel Case No, 01-0222 jor annulment and cancellation of Decrce No N-150912 and its derivative trtlLeS was feted on June 8, 200! with the Paranaque Cty RTC IF is clear therejore that the reverSion Suit was erroneously inStitutcd in the Paranaque RTC and Should have. been dismissed jor Lack of jurisdiction. The proper courk 1S the CA which 13 the body mandated by BP BLg. (2% and preser ibed by Rule 47 to handle annulment of jadgmenes o4 RTCS,Neypes v. CA GR No, 141524 September 14-2005 Facks: Petitioners fited an action for the annulment of pdgerent o} Artles °f Land before the RTC against the Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of Lands, . Respondents wofroncd jor reconsideration, the RTC then had granted the dismissal, cking that the ackion had prescribed. Petitioners filed a petitron jor certiorari and mandamus on the ground that they filed their notrce of appeal within the reglementary period. They arqued that the 'S-day reglementary period Lo appeal Started to run only on July 22, (498 since this was the day they recelved the final order °f the trial court denying therr motion for reconsideration, The Court of Appeals (CA) dismiSSed the petitron and ruled that the (5-day period to appeal Should have been reckoned the day they recerved the dasy they reccived the order dismissing their complaint. IS3uc: Whether or nok petitioners’ appeal was fited out of time when petitioners received the last or penal order © the courk on Juli 22, 1998 and feted their notice of appeal on July 27, (998 and paid the appeal dockck jee on August 3, «1498,Ruling: No, petitroners' appeal was juted on Lime. Under Rule 41, Section 3, petitioners had 15 days rom notice of judgment or = jdinal order to appeal the deciscon of the trial court, On the 15th day of the ornginal appeal period (March 18, 1448), petitioners did not jite a notice °F appeal but instead opted to Jile a motron for reconsideration, To Standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to aj jord Likiganks jour opportune ty to appeal ther case3, the Court deems it prackical to allow a fresh perzod of 15 days within which to jite the notice of appeal in the Requonal Treal Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trral or motion for reconsidcratron, Thus, petitioners SeasonabL filed their notice of appeal within the fresh per Lod. of 15 days, counted jrom July 22, #1998 (the date of recerpt of notice denying therr mo£ron for reconsidcration), A party Litigant may cither qile his notuce o} appeal within 15 days from receLpt of the Regional Trial Court's decision or fite it within 15 days from receipk of the order (the “4enal order’) denying his motion jor new trial or motxon for reconsideration. Obviously, the new (5-day pertod may be availed of only 44either motron 18 filed; otherwise, the deciSion becomes final and cnecutory ajter the Lapse of the original appeal period. provided in Rule 41, Sectron 3% The right to appeal iS neither a natural right nor a part of due process, It is merely a statutory previlege and may be exercised only un the manner and in accordance with the provisions of Law,People ve Mapa GR No L-223015 August 30, 1967 Facks: On or about August 13, 1%62, Mario Mapa was apprehended due to posseSsron of an unlicensed firearm The dc fendant admikked before the trial court that he was carrying the unlrcensed jereart and that he does not have a permit to carry such a weapon, In his dcejense, he sad that he 1S a seeret agenk of the Governor of Batangas and that he is cnuempe from the requirement of Securing a License of firearn The defendant also showed a cerki fication that he was appointed as such, Issue: Whether or not an agent oF the governor can hold a firearm without a permit issued by the Philippine Constabulary Held: In the present case, there is no room for inter pretatron or conStruction pbecauSe the law iS clear. The Law provides jor the class of people who are not covered in the prohibitive Law, No exemption was provided or Secret agents. Construction and enter pretation core only ajtcr it has teen demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them “