Republic vs Zenaida Guinto- Aldana

G.R. No. 175578 August 11, 2010

Doctrine: the non-submission, of the original tracing cloth plan is fatal to the registration application,
since the same is mandatory in original registration of title. However, in this case there was
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE because it was previously transmitted by the Guinto to LRA in a
previous registration case involving the same properties.

Facts:
 In 2002, respondents Zenaida Guinto-Aldana (Zenaida), together with her siblings filed with RTC Las
Pinas Application for Registration of Title over 2 pieces of land in Las Pinas These lands,
identified as Lot No. 4 and Lot No. 5 in Conversion Consolidation Subdivision Plan 1,509 square
meters and 4,640 square meters.
 Respondents professed themselves to be co-owners of these lots, having acquired them by
succession from their parents Sergio Guinto (Sergio) and Lucia Rivera-Guinto (Lucia).
 In support of their application, respondents submitted to the court the blueprint of Plan as well as
copies of the technical descriptions of each lot, a certification from the geodetic engineer and the
pertinent tax declarations, together with the receipts of payment therefor. Expressly, they averred
that the property’s original tracing cloth plan had previously been submitted to the RTC of Las
Pinas City.in connection with the proceedings in LRC Case, a previous registration case involving the
subject property which, however, had been dismissed without prejudice.
 Petitioner, through the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pinas City opposed the said application.
 Furthermore, Zenaida 61 years old, declared that she has known that the subject lots were owned by
her family since she was 5 years old, her grandparents had lived in the subject lots until the death of
her grandmother in 1961. She implied that aside from her predecessors there were other persons,
caretakers supposedly, who had tilled the land and who had lived until sometime between 1980 and
1990. She remembered her grandmother having constructed a house on the property, but the same had
already been destroyed. Also, sometime in 1970, her family built an adobe fence around the perimeter
of the lots and later, in the 1990s, they reinforced it with hollow blocks and concrete after an
inundation caused by the flood. She claimed that she and her father, Sergio, had been religious in the
payment of real estate taxes as shown by the tax declarations and tax receipts which she submitted to
the court and which, following identification, were forthwith marked in evidence.
 Zenaidas claim of prior, open, exclusive and continuous possession of the land was corroborated by
Josefina Luna (Josefina), one of the adjoining lot owners. Josefina, then 73 years old, strongly
declared that the subject lots were owned by Zenaidas parents, Sergio Guinto and Lucia Rivera, since
she reached the age of understanding, and that she had not come to know of any instance where a third
party had placed a claim on the property. When asked whether there was anyone residing in the
property and whether there were improvements made thereon, she said there was no one residing
therein and that there was nothing standing thereon except for a nipa hut.

TC Denied application of registration of Guinto et al.

CA Reversed and Set Aside TC.

Petitioner’s argument/s: under Sec 17 of P.D. No. 1529, the submission in court of the original tracing
cloth plan of the property is a mandatory requirement in registration proceedings in order to establish the
exact identity of the property. Petitioner suggests that the blueprint of the subdivision plan submitted by
respondents cannot approximate substantial compliance with the requirement. Lastly, petitioner attacks
respondents claim of prior possession.

Issue: In the case at bar, does the blueprint copy of the survey plan suffice for compliance with the
requirement?

R: Yes, it operates as SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.

In the case at bar, we find that the submission of the blueprint of Plan together with the technical
description of the property, operates as SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE with the legal
requirement of ascertaining the identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 applied for registration.
In the instant case, the Guintos do not deny that only the blueprint copy of the plan of the subject
lands and not the original tracing cloth plan thereof was submitted to the court a quo since they
had previously submitted the original tracing cloth plan to the Land Registration Authority.
Likewise, when the blueprint copy of the plan was offered in evidence, the oppositor-apellee did not raise
any objection thereto. Such silence on the part of the Land Registration [Authority] and the oppositor-
appellee can be deemed as an implied admission that the original tracing cloth plan and the blueprint
copy thereof are one and the same, free from all defects and clearly identify the lands sought to be
registered. In this regard ,the blueprint copy of the plan, together with its technical descriptions, is
deemed tantamount to substantial compliance with the requirements of law

On issue of possession: Guinto have been in possession and occupation of the lands. It is clear that
respondents possession through their predecessor-in-interest dates back to as early as 1937. In that year,
the subject property had already been declared for taxation by Zenaidas father, Sergio, Yet, it also can be
safely inferred that Sergio and Toribia had declared the land for taxation even earlier because the 1937
tax declaration shows that it offsets a previous tax number.

Land registration proceedings are governed by the rule that while tax declarations and realty tax
payment are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are a good indication of
possession in the concept of owner. These documents constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is
not in his actual or at least constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for
taxation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property.

Indeed, that respondents herein have been in possession of the land in the concept of owner open,
continuous, peaceful and without interference and opposition from the government or from any
private individual itself makes their right thereto unquestionably settled and, hence, deserving of
protection under the law.
SC: Petition Denied, CA AFFIRMED.
Mariano Turquesa vs. Rosario Valera & Court of Appeals ,
G.R. No. 76371, January 20, 2000 (379 Phil. 618)

- Facts:

- Respondent applied for registration of 2 parcels of land referred to as Lot 1 and Lot 2. She alleged to
have bought Lot 1 and declared it in her name for taxation purposes.
- Notice for the application for registration was published in the Official Gazette.
- Oppositors were the Director of Bureau of Lands and herein petitioners. The opposition of Bureau of
Lands was denied for failure to substantiate his claim that the land is part of the public domain.
- Other petitioners claim that their lands were included in Lot 1 sought to be registered by the
respondent.
- The lower court decided in favor of the respondent and denied petitioner’s motion for ocular
inspection of the land in dispute. Oppositors appealed to CA regarding Lot 1. CA remanded the case to
the lower court for ocular inspection. 3
- Commissioners were appointed for the ocular inspection but their findings were opposed and a second
ocular inspection was ordered. The trial court reiterated its former judgment to register the whole are
of Lot 1 to the respondent with its encumbrance to PNB in the amount of P1,000 removed as it was
already paid and thus no longer annotated on the title.
- The oppositors appealed with the argument that their properties were erroneously included in the
respondent’s land registration. CA modified the land registration on lot 1 excluding the landholdings
of the oppositors.
- Respondent filed a suit for a writ of possession over 2 lots occupied by Santiago Partolan and Crispin
Baltar which the court denied.
- Upon appeal, the CA reversed the court decision and granted the motion for writ of possession on the
landholdings of Partolan, Baltar and oppositors who did not appeal the decision of the lower court
while excluding the landholdings of Segundina and Damasen who proved they have rightful and
registrable rights over their claim on a specific portion of land.
- Thus, the oppositors filed a motion for review.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is entitled for land registration of the entire area of Lot 1 including
those owned by the oppositors?

Ruling: The court held that the burden of proof in land registration is encumbered upon the
applicant who must show he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for.
Because the land registration proceeding is an in rem proceeding, a default order issued by the court binds
the whole world except those appearing in court to file their opposition or pleadings in the registration
case. Thus, the oppositors are exempted from the general default order by the court. On the respondent’s
motion for writ of possession on the lots occupied by Baltar and Partolan, the court finds no merit in
granting their motion. Respondent did not provide evidence on her rightful claim over these land areas.
Although Partolan was excluded in the general default issued by the court while Baltar did not appeal on
the trial court’s decision, respondent is still required to prove and establish her registrable rights over the
land even in the absence of opposition. The payment of tax by her predecessor-in-interest is not sufficient
evidence to prove ownership.
Respondent should also prove not only the genuineness of her title but also to identify the land in
dispute with the boundaries comprising it. What defines a piece of land is not the size/area mentioned in its
descriptions but the boundaries laid down as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. The writ of
possesion sought by the private respondent against persons who are in actual possession under claim of
ownership and their possession of the land raises a disputable presumption of ownership. Therefore, the
land areas to be registered to the respondent are limited only to certain areas in the sketch that is
annexed to the Commissioner’s report as the respondent failed to establish proprietary right over
the excluded areas.
Martinez v Republic
G.R. No. 160895. October 30, 2006.
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari TOPIC: Order of default

FACTS:
- On 24 February 1999, petitioner Jose Martinez filed a petition for registration in his name of 3
parcels of land included in Cortes, Surigao del Sur Cadastre which collectively comprised around
3,700 sq.m. He alleged that he had purchased the lots in 1952 from his uncle, whose predecessors
in interest were traceable up to the 1870s. He further claimed that he had remained in continuous
possession of the lots, that the lots had remained unencumbered, and that they became private
property through prescription pursuant to Section 48(b) of CA 141. He further claimed that he had
been constrained to initiate proceedings because the DOL Management Services failed to do so
despite the completion of the cadastral survey of Cortes, Surigao del Sur.

- ON 30 sept 1999, the OSG, in behalf of RP opposed the petition on the grounds that Martinez’
possession was not in accordance with Section 48(b) of CA 141 and that his muniments were
insufficient to prove bona-fide acquisition and possession of the subject lands, and that the
properties formed part of the public domain and hence not susceptible to private appropriation.

- Despite the opposition, the RTC issued an order of general default on March
29 2000 as a result of non-appearance of the opposing party during the hearing date. Thus, the RTC
proceeded to receive Martinez’ oral and documentary evidence and were decreed the registration of the 3
lots in his name.

- OSG appealed the decision, and after the records had been transmitted to the CA, the RTC
received a letter from the LRA that the subject lots had been deliberately omitted due to the lack of
an approved survey plan for that property and that said lots should not have been adjudicated to
Martinez for lack of jurisdiction. The CA granted the motion of the OSG and reversed the decision
of the RTC. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the OSG could still have appealed the RTC decision after it had been declared in
default.

RATIO: YES. The Court clarified that in its averments, the OSG did not impute that the RTC acted
improperly in declaring them in default, even though an opposition had been filed to Martinez’ petition.

Under Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended, the order of default may be issued, “if no
person appears and answers within the time allowed.” The RTC appears to have issued the order of general
default simply on the premise that no oppositor appeared before it on the hearing of 29 March 2000. But it
cannot be denied that the OSG had already duly filed its Opposition to Martinez’s petition long before the
said hearing.
However, the Court found that the OSG who was declared in default retains the right to appeal from the
judgement from default on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of the
complaint. Thus petition dismissed.
REPUBLIC VS. MARASIGAN

Facts:
• Private respondent claims to be one of the heirs of Epifiania Alcano, registered owner of a parcel of
land located in Canubing, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro
o Area of 33,294 m2 covered by TCT T-66062 in the Registry of Deeds of Calapan, Oriental
Mindoro.
• Private Respondent filed a petition for reconstitution of the original and duplicate copy of the said
TCT on the basis of trhe owner’s duplicate copy.
o Alleging that she is in possession of the “title subject matter of” but did not allege the reason why
she asked for reconstitution.
• TC set the petition for hearing and required its publication in the Gazette which was done. Required
notices, except to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land were given.
• TC ruled in favor of the respondents
o From the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it appears that she is one of the vendees of a certain
parcel of land situated in Malamig, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro covered by Transfer Certificate of Title and
registered in the name of Epifania Alcano.
o The original copy of said title which was usually kept in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
this province was destroyed by reason of the fire which razed to the ground the entire Capitol Building then
housing said office on August 12, 1977.
• Petitioner Republic appealed to CA because the trial court erred in acquiring jurisdiction over the
instant petition for reconstitution of the original and the owner's duplicate copies of tct no. t-66062 without
the requisite service of notice of hearing to the adjoining owners and actual occupants of the land as
required by section 13 of republic act no. 26.

Issue: WON notices to adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land are mandatory and
jurisdictional in judicial reconstitution of certificates of title // WON the trial court acquired jurisdiction
over the case

Held:
• Yes
• The Court held that the questioned decision must be set aside.
• Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 has not been altered, modified or amended. Since the requirement therein
of service of notice of the initial hearing to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land was
not complied with in this case, the court below did not, therefore, acquire jurisdiction over the petition for
the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 66062.
o Accordingly, the respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the Order of the trial court
granting the petition and in holding that said Section 13 has been “at least impliedly amended” by Section
23 in relation to Section 110 of P.D. No. 1529 which took effect on 11 June 1978.
• The Court held that the notices to adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land are
mandatory and jurisdictional and non-compliance therewith would render all proceedings utterly null and
void.
• The Court further re-affirmed the doctrine:
o “The publication of the petition in two successive issues of the Official Gazette, the service of the
notice of hearing to the adjoining owners and actual occupants of the land, as well as the posting of the
notices in the main entrance of the provincial and municipal buildings where the property lies at least 30
days prior to the date of the hearing, as prescribed by Section 13 of the law, are mandatory and
jurisdictional requisites.”
• The Court also finds the view of the CA to be unfounded as there is absolutely nothing in P.D. No.
1529 which intimates or suggests, indirectly or even remotely, an intention to amend said Section 13.
• Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 was never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by mailing
and by posting.
o What it simply means is that in so far as publication is concerned, there is sufficient compliance if
the notice is published in the Official Gazette, although the law mandates that it be published "once in the
Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines." However, publication in
the latter alone would not suffice. This is to accord primacy to the official publication.
• The Court of Appeals negates one of the principal purposes of the Decree, which is clearly
expressed in its exordium, namely, to strengthen the Torrens System through safeguards to prevent
anomalous titling of real property. A defective publication deprives the court of jurisdiction.

GENERAL PROCEDURE IN AN ORDINARY LAND REGISTRATION CASE

A. SURVEY OF THE LAND

Fausta Francisco vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-35787, April 11, 1980 (97 SCRA 22)

Facts:

This is a petition for review filed by the petitioner on the decision rendered by the CA reversing
the CFI judgment in favor of her on a land registration case and orders the issuance of the
Original Cert. of Title to the respondents Alejandro Santos and Ramona Francisco instead.
Petitioner alleges that she is the absolute owner of the land in dispute covered with an Original
Cert. of title of the Register of Deeds; that she is in continuous, adverse, open, peaceful and
uninterrupted possession of the land since time immemorial; respondents have never been in
possession of the land as they claim and that they obtained their Decree of Registration of said
land by fraud. Apparently, Diego Francisco, the petitioner’s father occupied the land in dispute
since 1918 and obtained a homestead patent for it. He introduced some improvements on the
land such as fencing the area with barbwires, planting mango trees and palays and pasturing
carabaos. He was able to secure a title in favor of his children petitioner included for the big
parcel of land he cultivates and improves and when he died in 1941 the petitioner continued to
possess the land in question not embraced in the Transfer of Cert. of Title issued to them in the
concept of an owner.

The petitioner had the land surveyed from a private surveyor only to find out that there is already
a survey plan of the said land in the name of the respondents and that a title was already issued
to them. Petitioner now contends that being an adjacent owner of the land in question they were
not notified of the survey. The Surveyor’s Certificate reveals that notice was given to the
following: Jose Cruz, Diego Francisco (petitioner’s father), and Santol Creek. It is noted that
both Jose Cruz and Diego Francisco were already dead from the date of the notice and Santol
Creek is not a person or entity. It was established that the petitioner and her brother and sisters
who are the actual occupants of the adjacent land of the land in question were not notified of the
survey. Petitioner did not read the publication in the Official Gazette and the former mayor of
Teresa who is the owner of the property across the Santol Creek testified that Diego Francisco
was in possession of the land throughout his lifetime and after his death his heirs and not the
respondents. By virtue of this continuous, adverse, and open possession of the land in question
for forty-seven (47) years now, Fausta Francisco has become the absolute owner of this parcel of
land.

Respondent contends that the petitioner’s claim for ownership of the land in question is
insufficient in form and substance failing to explain under what color of title she acquires
ownership of the land in question, citing that an essential requisite for a valid petition for
reopening and review of a decree should be made by a person who is deprived of the land or
interest. "In order to obtain the benefits of section 38 of Act 496 the applicant (1) must have an
estate or interest in the land, and (2) must show fraud in the procurement of the decree of
registration. A mere claim of ownership is not sufficient to avoid a certificate of title obtained
under the Land Registration Act. The mere claim of ownership of petitioner lacks this requisite
to merit in granting of their petition. They claim that Toribio Santos, the respondent’s father
owns the land and Alejandro Santos inherited it from him and occupied the land in 1920 and has
been in possession thereof for more than 30 years.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the applicant secured thru fraud Decree No. N-99332

2. Who is the true and absolute owner of the land in question.

Ruling:

It appears that Jose Cruz and Diego Francisco are both dead when the alleged notice was
served and that Santol Creek could not appear for the hearing because it is not a person. The
court finds it absurd that the respondent claims that they complied with the requisite of serving
notice to interested parties on the land in question. It is clear that the petitioner and her brothers
and sisters who are the actual occupants of the adjacent lots were not notified of the registration
proceeding applied for by the petitioner. It is clear that no notice was sent to the actual owner
and possessor of the land in question allowing the respondents to successfully register the land in
their name. It was also established that respondents did not state the true adjoining owners of the
North, East and West of the land in question. On the North side it is no longer Diego Francisco
who is the owner of the lot but it is the petitioner by virtue of transfer of the homestead patent of
their father to them as his heirs. On the East, it is no longer Jose Cruz who owns the land but it
was already by a different person after his death. On the West, it is no longer Eugenio Francisco
who is the owner but it is Paula Francisco, petitioner’s sister who is in actual possession of the
land.

The court find that the respondents have the motive of concealing their application for registration
from the real owners of these said lands by not sending them the actual notice of their application for
registration to prevent them from filing their opposition. The court cited the failure of the surveyors of the
respondent to comply with the requirement of finding out the actual occupants and boundary owners of the
said land. The court held that the registration of land cannot serve as a protecting mantle to cover and
shelter bad faith. Thus it reverses the decision of the CA and affirmed the decision of the lower court
without prejudice to petitioner and the trial court complying with the additional requirements for the
issuance of the corresponding title in favor of petitioner.
Director of Lands vs Court of Appeals
G. R. No. 102858, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 276

FACTS:
1. On 8 December 1986, private respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration
of his title over 648 sq.m. of land under PD 1529 however during the pendency of the petition,
Teodoro died hence his heirs were substituted as applicants, represented by their aunt, who was
appointed as their guardian ad litem.
2. The Land registration court dismissed its petition for want of jurisdiction stating that the applicants
failed to comply with the provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529 requiring the Applicants to
publish the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and
was only published in the Official Gazette and thus the court has not legally acquired jurisdiction
over the instant petition for want of compliance with the mandatory provision requiring
publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
3. The case was appealed by the private respondents in the CA, which set aside the decision of the
trial court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado. The motion for
reconsideration was denied, thus this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case is
MANDATORY or DIRECTORY in relation to Section 23(1) of PD 1529.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that provision of the law is MANDATORY. The law used the term
“SHALL” and denotes an IMPERATIVE and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute, its
importance ultimately depends upon its context in the entire provision, and the Court holds that the present
case must be understood in its normal mandatory meaning.
Land registration is a proceeding in rem and as such is validated essentially in publication this being so the
process must be strictly complied with, in that the one who is instituting the action must be able to prove
his title against the whole world. Hence, before the claimed property is taken from concerned parties and
registered in the name of the applicant, said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose, the
reason of which is DUE PROCESS.
In the present case, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication requirement of the law. The
Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation; there is only room for application and there is no alternative. Thus, the case was dismissed
without prejudice to reapplication after all the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.