________________________________________________________________________ 1. HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ vs.

DE CASTRO 324 SCRA 591-618, February 3, 2000 FACTS: In this case, two applications for registration of the same parcel of land were filed in different branches of the Court of First Instance. The certificates of title were issued in the name of respondent de Castro, while the other, for the heirs of Pedro Lopez was still pending. On July 25, 1956, Pedro Lopez et al. filed an application for the registration of a 69-hectare parcel of land in Tagaytay City with the CFI of Cavite. On June 24, 1957, Assistant Fiscal Legaspi, representing the Municipality of Silang Cavite, submitted an opposition on behalf of the municipality. The opposition was amended alleging that the subject lot had been its patrimonial property since 1930 or earlier. In their answer, the applicants claimed that a part of the whole tract of land they sought to register was their inheritance. The municipality filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 1969, the lower court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of merit on the ground that the oppositor municipality had no personality to intervene considering that Lot 1 was outside of its territorial limits. The municipality filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order. The court denied it in its July 23, 1970 order. The applicants filed a motion praying that the clerk of court be commissioned to receive evidence for them it appearing that the order of July 23, 1970 had become final and executor “by virtue of which the municipality of Silang no longer had any personality. The court granted said motion and directed clerk of court to submit a report. In his report, dated April 15, 1971, clerk of court Rolando Diaz stated that since time immemorial, the Delos Reyes’ owned and possessed parcel of land in question. On November 3, 1870, they sold it to Dimaranan. On September 15, 1892, the property was passed to Pedro Lopez de Leon, Sr. And Maxima Trinidad until their death when their children took over ownership and possession thereof. Upon their death, their respective heirs succeeded over the property and on February 25, 1971, they partitioned it. On April 19, 1971, the court rendered a decision approving the report of the clerk of court and ordering the decree of title be issued in favor of the applicants (Lopez’). In the course of examining the records for the purpose of issuing the decree of registration in favor of Pedro Lopez, et al., the Land Registration Commission discovered that lot 1 had been decreed in favor of private respondent Honesto de Castro, et al.

Page 1

Further investigation revealed that sometime in 1967, Honesto de castro et al. sought the registration of the same parcel of land in question and succeeded in declaring it in their names. On August 19, 1981, the CFI of Cavite issued an order declaring the court had lost jurisdiction, without however dismissing the case. Seven (7) years later, on June 28, 1988, the heirs of Pedro Lopez filed a complaint “for execution of judgement and cancellation of land titles of the defendants and their successors-in-interest” before the RTC of Cavite.

ISSUE: Whether or not the titles issued to the defendants be cancelled? HELD: No. In land registration proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to take care of their interest and to zealously pursue their objective of registration on account of the rule that whoever first acquires title to a piece of land shall prevail. Where more than one certificate of title is issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land, as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate. This rule refers to the date of the certificate of title, not the date of filing. Petitioners failed to exercise the due diligence required of them as applicants for land registration. In the year 1981, the CFI of Cavite issued an order regarding the case-stating that it had lost jurisdiction regarding the case. With this, petitioners were presumed to have been notified of the land registration proceedings filed by private respondent. They let seven years to pass from such discovery before they acted to revive what already was a dormant judgment. In short, they were guilty of laches-negligence/failure to do that which is ought to be done. Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration (Presidential Decree 1529) The decree of registration shall not be reopened by reason of absence, minority or other disability, subject, however, to the right of any person...deprived of land, to file in the proper Court of CFI a petition for reopening and review not later than ONE YEAR. Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Hence, the heirs of Pedro Lopez lost their property in favor of Honesto de Castro.

Page 2

________________________________________________________________________ 2. THE DIRECTOR OF LAND vs. COURT OF APPEALS 276 SCRA 276 FACTS: On December 8, 1986, respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of title over a parcel of land. During the pendency of the petition, applicant died, he was substituted by his heirs, which was represented by their aunt Josefa Abestado. The Land Registration Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. In dismissing the petition, the trial court reasoned that 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. It was only published in the official gazette. Consequently, the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the instant application with want of compliance with the mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. ISSUE: Whether or not newspaper publication is mandatory in a land registration case? HELD: Yes. Under the provision of section 23 of PD 1529, the public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application of land registration by means of publication, mailing and posting. Upon receipt of the order of court setting time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to be published once in the official gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory, the reason is due process and the reality that the official gazette is not widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested party/ies on time, if at all. In sum, the all-encompassing in run nature of land registration cases, the consequences of default orders issued against the whole world and the objective and disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible demand a mandatory construction of the requirements for publication, mailing and posting. Wherefore, the petition is granted and the application of private respondent for land registration is dismissed.

Page 3

Page 4 . On 29 June 1993. A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive upon all matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceeding. Requiring the submission of new plan as a condition for the reissuance of the decree would render the finality attained by the Cacho vs U. would be tantamount to setting aside the decree which cannot be reopened after the lapse of one year from the enrty thereof. 10364 was issued o9 May 1913 and Decree No. COURT OF APPEALS 269 SCRA 159. On 29 June 1978. the ownership of a parcel of land is sought to be established. 10364 and 18969. except when the losing party had been in possession of land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom. A land registration proceeding is binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the government and its branches. March 3. no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration. ISSUE: Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in its decision? HELD: Yes. The issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty both of the judge and of the land registration commission. case nugatory. In land registration proceedings.________________________________________________________________________ 3. CACHO vs.S. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. petitioner Teofilo Cacho. Such action would definitely run counter to the very purpose of the Torrens System. To allow the final decrees to be once again be subject to the conditions set forth in the 1914 case of Cacho vs U. noting that the LRC Registry Book of Ordinary Registration Cases showed that Decree No. son and sole heir of Demetria. thus. field a petition for reconstitution of two original certificates of title under RA 26.S. the application of Doña Demetria Cacho for the registration of two parcels of land was decided. violating the fundamental rule regarding res judicata. the lower court decreed the reconstitution and re-issuance of Decrees Nos. 1997 FACTS: On 10 December 1912. 18969 was issued on 07 July 1915. The lower court and the court of appeals correctly found that decrees of registration had in fact been issued in the case at bench.

A final decision in land registration cases can neither be rendered inefficacious by the statute of limitation nor by laches. Page 5 .

The land now was declared in the name of Gregorio Rivera under Tax Declaration No. adversely. continuously. He planted corn and coconut seedlings which later bore fruit. They continued planting corn. Originally. the land was owned by Eliseo Rivera who began possessing and occupying the same in the concept of owner openly. the spouses Ignacio Almazar and Gregoria Rivera purchased the land from him. Likewise. 18333. under a bonafide claim of acquisition or ownership. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain. On 22 May 1971. For taxation purposes. adversely and exclusively since 1926. 1999 FACTS: Lot 10704 was a parcel of land partly local and corn land situated at Cagmanaba. all taxes have been paid up to the current year. Oas. continuously. Albay.DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. They shall be conclusively essential to the Page 6 . They constructed a house as their abode and continued to plant corn and coconut as means of livelihood and for family consumption. the court ordered the registration and confirmation in the name of Spouses Monico Rivero and Estrella Nota. private respondents/claimant herein purchased the land from Rivera. the land was declared in the name of claimant’s wife. Sometime in 1928. continuous. ISSUE: Whether or not Spouses Monico Rivero and EStrella Nota have a registrable title to the lot in question? HELD: Yes. for at least 30 years immediately preceding the application for confirmation of the title except when prevented by war or force majeure. Estrella Nota. Finding that the claimant has satisfactorily possessed and occupied the land in the concept of owner openly. COURT OF APPEALS 308 SCRA 317. and exclusively since 1926. June 17. The CA affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The Director of Lands appealed to the CA alleging the claimant’s possession of the lot since 1926 is not sufficiently supported by the evidence and that no evidence that Gregoria Rivera declared the same in her name for tax purposes during her alleged occupancy. Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act provides: “Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interests have been in open. The land was surveyed in the name of herein claimant per certification of CENRO.________________________________________________________________________ 4.

government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.” Page 7 .

he having possessed the same for 32 years (1959-1991). Aquino had reserved the lot for Opol National School. Sometime in 1970. DOLDOL 295 SCRA 359. The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove (a) that the land is alienable public land and (b) that his open. ISSUE: Whether or not Doldol has the better right to possess the land in dispute? HELD: No. the Provincial Board of Misamis Oriental passed a resolution reserving a certain lot as a school site. much later than June 12. September 10.REPUBLIC vs. he filed an application for saltwork purposes for the said area but the Director of Forestry rejected the same. the CA reversed the decision of teh court ruling that Doldol was entitledto the portion he occupied. continuous. by operation of law. Consequently. 1945. Doldol cannot be said to have acquired a right to the land or a right to assert a right superior to the school given that then Pres. a government grant. Doldol could not have acquired an imperfect title to the disputed land since his occupation of the same started only in 1955. When the conditions set by law are complied with the possessor of the land. without the necessity of title/certificate of tile being issued. acquires a right to grant. The evidence presented shows that the land in dispute is alienable and disposable in accordance with the District Forester’s Certification. “The privilege occupying public lands with a view of pre-empting confers no contractual or vested right in the land occupied and the Page 8 . On 1963. This lot unfortunately included the lot of Doldol. On appeal. respondent Nicanor Doldol occupied a portion of land in Opol. the Opol High School filed a complaint for accion possessoria with the RTC. Sometime in 1965. 1998 FACTS: Sometime in 1959. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act.________________________________________________________________________ 5. the court ruled on school’s power. Not having complied with the conditions set forth by law. Misamis Oriental. Doldol thus meets the first requirement.

Page 9 . Opol National Schoolhas the better right of possession over the land in dispute. or to reserve them for public use. and no lawful settlement on them can be acquired” (Solicitor General) In sum. Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry. prior to divesting by the government of title thereof stands eventhough this may defeat the imperfect right of settler.authority of the President to withdraw such lands for sale or acquisition by the public.

herein petitioners. In 1953. then Governor General of the Philippine Islands issued EO NO. In 1974. Claiming that the aforesaid OCT were lost during the Japanese occupation. The Palomos. 40 in the name of Diego Palomo on 1916-1917. management. now a Division of the Bureau of Forest Development. Albay. October. President Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. under the control. In 1954. The petitioners appealed to the CA which affirmed the findings of the lower court. Ignacio and Carmen Palomo. 40. protection and administration of Commissions of Parks and Wildlife. 40 into “Tiwi Hot Spring National Park”. Ignacio Palomo filed a petition for reconstruction. the court rule din favor of the RP. however. pandan and coconuts. On the other hand.Tiwi. Palomo donated these parcels of land to his heirs. 1997 FACTS: On 13 June 1913. the RP filed a Civil case for Annulment and Cancellation of CoT involving 15 parcels of land registered in the name of petitioners. ordered the registration of 15 parcels of land covered by EO No. January 21. the then Court of First Instance in Albay. two years before his death in 1937. 47. which reserved for provincial park purposes parcels of land situated in Naga.PALOMO vs. converting the area embraced by EO No. is neither susceptible of disposition under Public Land Law nor registrable under Land Registration Act. therefore. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner certificate of titles are valid? HELD: Page 10 . The court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. bananas. the RD issued TCT to said lot. They also mortgaged the parcels of land to guarantee a loan from BPI. Subsequently. In 1974. COURT OF APPEALS 266 SCRA 392.________________________________________________________________________ 6. The area was never released as alienable and disposable portion of public domain and. paid real taxes thereon and introduced improvements by planting rice. petitioners filed a civil case for injunction with damages against employees of the Bureau of Forest Development who entered the land and cut down the bamboos thereat. continued in possession of the property.

No. Under the law. Royal Grant 2. it is not registrable and possession thereof no matter how lengthy cannot convert it into private ownership. which were documented in various forms. Petitioners placed much reliance on the decisions of the Court of First Instance which were not signed by the judge but were merely certified copies of notification to Diego Palomo bearing the signature of the Clerk of Court. 1889. Public land may not be the subject of registration. records in the Bureau of Forestry show that the subject lands were never declared as alienable and disposable and subject to private alienation prior to 1913 up to the present. Page 11 . As testified by the District Forester. As part of the reservation for provincial park purposes. Tax declarations are also not conclusive proof of ownership in land registration cases. such as: 1. Unfortunately. forest land cannot be owned by private persons. Special Grant 3. Possessory Information Title obtained under the Spanish Mortgage Law or under the Royal Decree of January 26. no proof was presented that petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest derived the title from an old Spanish grant. Title by Purchase 4. they form part of the forest zone. private ownership of land could only be acquired through royal concessions. Under the Spanish Crown.

F. Sec. 141 could be invoked in this particular case? HELD: No. 48 of Commonwealth Act No. The Director of Lands opposed petitioner’s application on the ground that neither he nor his predecessors-in-interest posses sufficient title to the subject land nor had they been in open. continuous. In 1985.________________________________________________________________________ 7. petitioner. The lower court issued an order granting the application of petitioner. ISSUES: 1. under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership.657 sq. 2002 FACTS: Sometime in 1908. There can be no imperfect title to be confirmed over lands not yet classified or disposable or alienable. continuous. Maria Cailles. 1945. and that the subject land was part of public domain. m. ruled in favor of petitioner upholding the right of M. 48 of Court of Appeals No. acquired parcels of land involving 9.I. COURT OF APPEALS & REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 323 SCRA 193. Metro Manila. Page 12 . In 1961. Whether or not petitioner has vested rights over the parcels of land? 2. January 25. the land remains public land until released therefrom and open to disposition. In 1963. or earlier. immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title. It was conclusively shown by the government that the same were only classified as alienable on March 27. Whether or not Sec.A 141 was amended by PD 1073 in January 1977. The Solicitor General appealed to respondent Court in 1992 which reversed and set aside the lower court’s order. In the absence of such classification. he still cannot claim title thereto by virtue of possession since the subject parcels of land were not yet alienable land at that time nor capable of private appropriation. Maria Cailles sold the said parcels of land to her son. 141. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same for at least 30 years prior to the application. 48 of C. 1972. Sr.JAMES BRACEWELL vs. except when prevented by wars or force majeure. the Solicitor General re-submitted his opposition. petitioner filed an action for confirmation of imperfect title under Sec. located at Las Pinas. Cailles. since June 12. It also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain. The C. Petitioner failed to show that the parcels of land subject of his application are alienable or disposable. which now reads (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open. married to James Bracewell. Even the petitioner and his predecessors occupied the same since 1908.

February 7. must present muniments of title since the Spanish times. Laguna.. 6 in the name of Respondent Carino was valid? HELD: No. According to respondent. such as Titulo Real. or a titulo de compra.614 sq. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTC’s decision ordering the registration of Lot No. Carino filed for the registration of some 43. 2002 FACTS: On May 15. That Carino had been in open. informacion possessoria or adjustment title. etc. COURT OF APPEALS & AQUILINO CARINO 324 SCRA 757. lot located at Cabuyao. ________________________________________________________________________ 8. The petition for land registration at bar is under the Land Registration Act which requires that he who alleges in his petition or application. It further stated that the land was agricultural in nature and improvements thereon were sugarcane. a Concession Especial or special grant. m.THE DIRECTOR. continuous and exclusive possession of the land who acquired the same thru inheritance from his deceased mother. or title through purchase. the subject land was originally owned by his mother Teresa Lauchengco who died in 1911. and that the same land was free from claim and conflict. 1975. bamboo clumps. etc. a Composicion Con Al Estado or adjustment title. or royal grant. Page 13 . That the land subject for registration was outside any civil or military reservation. and later administered by him in behalf of his five sisters and brothers after the death of their father in 1934. LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU vs.Petition DENIED for lack of merit. ownership in fee simple. private respondent A. which would become a titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title. Private respondent’s statements were confirmed by the report of the Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands.

(2) the claims of other petitioners appeared in the original survey although three of these claims bear different identifying names. the CA set aside the appealed decision and remanded it to the lower court. However. In the course of the hearing. Oppositors moved for an ocular inspection in order to determine the correct boundary limits of the lands they respectively claim. but the same was denied. presented documents showing that when she was still single. private respondent. VALERA 322 SCRA 573 FACTS: More than half a century ago. Rosario Valera. On 23 April 1956.TURQUESA vs. Oppositors appealed.________________________________________________________________________ 9. she bought lot 1 from Cristeta Trangued and heirs of Juan Valera Rufino who were allegedly in possession thereof since the Spanish in the concept of owners and who declared it in their name for taxation purposes. the oppositors (except the director of lands) averred that their lands were included in lot 1 which private respondent sought to register in her name. Page 14 . together with petitioners and other persons opposed the application of private respondent. private respondent applied for the registration of two parcels of land locate d in Abra. three (3) commissioners were appointed by the Trial Court to conduct ocular inspection. She doesn’t have a rightful claim over the land. The Director of Lands. the court just reiterated its former decision ordering the registration of the lot in the name of applicant Rosario Valera. ISSUE: Does Rosario Valera have a rightful claim over the lot in question? HELD: No. The observations and findings were the following: (1) the claims of petitioners as shown in the sketch plan are not shown in the original survey. From 1929. she continued possession of said land in concept of owner and continued to pay tax thereon in her name. On 15 March 1966. (3) the “Calle para Collago” maintained by the oppositors to be the extent or boundary of the property of the applicant on the south side is existing and still is the existing boundary on the south and on the southeast side as shown in the sketch plan. In accordance with the CA directive. the trial court ruled that applicant has a registrable title.

It must be borne in mind that what defines a piece of land is not the size or area mentioned in its description. If an applicant does not have any rightful claim over real property. On him also rests the burden to overcome the presumption that land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Page 15 . does not constitute the “WELL-NIGH INCONTROVERTIBLE” and “CONCLUSIVE” evidence required in land registration. as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. which must be grounded on incontrovertible evidence and based on positive and absolute proof. the Torrens System of registration can confirm or record nothing. 1956. The Damasens were declared to have a rightful claim over the specific portions of Lot. Even if petitioner/s (Partolan) was excluded by the order of general default and (Baltar) did not appeal from the trial court’s decision of April 23. The applicant must still prove and establish that she has registrable rights over the land.The burden of proof in land registration cases is incumbent on the applicant who must show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. The declaration of the applicant that the land applied for has been in the possession of herpredecessor-in-interest for a certain period. but the boundaries therein laid down.

920 square meters located at Sto. filed a complaint for recovery of real property. February 2. & NDC is ordered to segregate same area & convey the same to the estate of J. 2. LSBDA assigned all rights over the property to the National Development Company (NDC).________________________________________________________________________ 10. the estate of Joaquin Ortega. and as a result. Thereafter. Rosario. Philphos & LEPANTO. vs. Leyte. et. In their Memorandum. & damages against the respondents. a new TCT was issued. Whether or not the issuance of a Miscellaneous Patent & an Original Certificate of Title in favor of LSBDA was valid. al.FELIPE SEVILLE./ CALIXTRA YAP 351 SCRA 112. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the remedy of reconveyance & the damages awarded by the Trial Court. The Deed of Sale by Calixtra Yap in favor of LSBDA is NULL & VOID ab initio. an original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in the name of LSBDA. 3. LSBDA filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application with the Bureau of Lands covering said lot. et. 4. among others. The Register of Deeds is ordered to issue 8 new titles. In 1989. Whether or not the sale of Calixtra Yap of the estate of the late Joaquin Ortega in favor of LSBDA was NULL & VOID. HELD: Page 16 . rentals. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. xxxx 5. Whether or not petitioners are guilty of laches. the Court declared. xxxx 8. After trial. Hence. 3. represented by their administrator Felipe Seville. 2. 1980. Calixtra Yap sold to LSBDA (Leyte Sub-Basin Development Authority) a lot consisting of 464. the following: 1. m. al. 4. On June 1. In 1988. xxxx A motion for reconsideration was filed with the Court of Appeals where the latter REVERSED & SET ASIDE the RTC’s judgment. petitioners submitted the following issues for the reconsideration of the Court: 1.. The property was leased to Philippine Associated Smelting & Refining Corporation. 1982. xxxx 6. this petition. Isabel. Ortega.333 sq. 2001 FACTS: On June 14. xxxx 7. The intestate estate of Joaquin Ortega is declared owner in fee simple of the 735.

the reliance on registered titles would be lost.” It has been held that a certificate of title. Petitioners’ challenge to LSBDA cannot be granted. altered. which states that. because it is based on a wrong premise and amounts to a collateral attack. pursuant to Sec.The petition has no merit. modified.” Page 17 . Sec. The proper remedy is an action for reversion. Otherwise. 101 of the Public Land Act. petitioners could not have become owners thereof through prescription. Therefore. “All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead. Moreover. in the proper courts. once registered. in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. which may be instituted only. the decree of registration and the certificate of title shall become incontrovertible. which is not allowed by law. the same was valid. 32 of PD 1529 provides that “upon expiration of said period of 1 year. modified. should not thereafter be impugned. LSBDA acquired the property in a public auction conducted by the Bureau of Lands. except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. There was no showing that the land had been classified as alienable before the title was issued to LSBDA. It cannot be altered.” Petitioners also claim that the disputed property should be reconveyed to them. the title became indefeasible & incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the time of its registration and issuance. LSBDA’s title was based on Miscellaneous Sales Patent issued by the Director of the Bureau of Lands. “Certificate not subject to collateral attack – A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. enlarged or diminished. This cannot be allowed. or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. hence.

1996. COURT OF APPEALS 308 SCRA 527. Pangasinan. Rosa sold the land to her nephew. After trial. In 1979. Whether or not the appealed decision was supported by evidence? 2. thru a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. respondent spouses Fontanilla went to the United States (U. executed another Deed of Absolute Sale over the same land in favor of Respondent Fontanilla. On May 7.________________________________________________________________________ 11.S. Rosa’s heirs. 1995. 139 to petitioners. Fontanilla sold the land to his daughter Rosa Fontanilla who then started paying the real estate property tax thereon. the CA AFFFIRMED the decision of the RTC. Estanislao Pajaro and his two children. herein Respondent Santiago Fontanilla. 1957. m. applied for the land registration of the same land in Pangasinan. but said motion was denied on February 26. While in the U. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On December 16. On August 22. Fructoso & Paciencia. 139 to spouses Santiago Fontanilla & Rafaela Rasing. Alaminos. the registration was approved and the Register of Deeds issued Original Certificate of Title No. The instrument was not registered. located at Lucap.SERNA vs.. 1999 FACTS: Dionisio Fontanilla was the original owner & possessor of a parcel of land with an area of 12. ordering the defendants to transfer & recover OCT No. the CFI ruled in favor of Respondent spouses Santiago Fontanilla & Rafaela Rasing declaring them absolute and legal owners of the land in question. Petitioners Enriqueto & Amparo Serna (Ampara is a grandchild of Dionisio Fontanilla). Whether or not the decision was in accordance with law & jurisprudence? Page 18 .S.) and stayed there until 1981. In 1938. June 18. Such title was transcribed in the registration book of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan.508 sq. 1981. ISSUES: 1. Respondent spouses Fontanilla filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) an action for reconveyance. Respondent spouses Fontanilla constructed their house on the lot in question. In 1978. 1955. On August 21. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

2. 496. YES.” Respondent spouses Fontanillas’ action for reconveyance was timely as it was filed within 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens Title over the property. PD 1529. was in accordance with law and At the time material hereto. filing or entering. Page 19 . Respondent spouses Fontanilla & R. xxxx Though mere tax declaration does not prove ownership of the property of the declarant. Later. the Property Registration Decree. as amended. continuous and adverse possession of the property for more than 60 years from 1921. The decision jurisprudence. Rasing proved that they were enjoying open. “Adjudication of land in a registration (or cadastral) case does not become final & incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Discovery of the fraud must be deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the certificate of title “because registration of real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons and it shall be counted from the time of such registering. YES. tax declarations & receipts can be strong evidence of ownership of land when accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for prescription. amended & codified laws relative to registration of property. The appealed decision was supported by evidence. This means that petitioners should have enforced the trust within 10 years from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property.” “An action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years.HELD: 1. registration of untitled land was pursuant to Act No. the decree becomes incontrovertible & no longer subject to reopening or review. After the lapse of said period.

1945. The CA affirmed the judgment appealed from. very much earlier to June 12. together with his predecessor-ininterest. continuously. peaceful & adverse possession” which appellee has convincingly established xxxxx. with an area of 10. PD 1073. continuously & exclusively in 1939. or earlier. it is not necessary. The Director contended that the earliest tax declaration presented by claimant took effect only in 1980 & the certificate of real estate tax payment was dated 1990. Sec. Finding that the claimant. Oas. continuous. 1973. Albay.________________________________________________________________________ 12. All that the law mandates is proof of “open. COURT OF APPEALS & ROMEO DIVINAFLOR 349 SCRA 451 FACTS: Lot 107391. has “satisfactorily possessed & occupied this land in the concept of an owner. He had it declared in his name thru a tax declaration. ruling that. 1945. since June 12. Respondent Divinaflor acquired a registrable title over the subject property. & exclusively since 1939. provides that. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Divinaflor has acquired registrable title over the subject property? HELD: YES. “To our mind. “Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open. adversely. notoriously. openly. a Motion for Reconsideration of the above-mentioned decision was likewise denied. notorious possession & occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain. On May 21. immediately preceing the filing of the Page 20 . openly. to present tax declarations & tax receipts of the land in question. Originally.775 square meters.” the Court ordered the registration & confirmation of lot 10739 in the name of Spouses Romeo Divinaflor & Nenita Radan. the land was owned by Marcial Listana who was in possession & occupation of the same in the concept of an owner. exclusive. under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership. in cases of this nature.” Thereafter. is a parcel of riceland located at Maramba. The Director of Lands appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging that the finding of the Trial Court was not sufficiently supported by evidence. Romeo Divinaflor acquired ownership of the land by means of an Absolute Deed of Sale. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 48. continuous.

except when prevented by wars or force majeure. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP) vs. In the foreclosure sale. In 1969.468 sq. Alvarez sold the land to Sps. Sometime in April of 1986. Petitioner DBP cancelled the loan & demanded payment from Cajes. Beduya. this petition. m.000. Hence.4 has. April 28. It appears that respondent Cajes had also applied for a loan from DBP in 1978.” ________________________________________________________________________ 13. after the release of the loan. was owned by Ulpiano Mumar since 1917. as security for the loan which was approved. on June 16.00 and mortgaged the land. Beduya then obtained a loan from petitioner DBP (Development Bank of the Philippines) for P 526. unknown to Cajes. mortgage on the property was foreclosed. 2000 FACTS: The land in dispute.43 million. Beduya in favour of DBP for P 1. 1961. 1969.application for confirmation of title. DBP was the highest bidder. As private respondent refused to do so. invoking that it was an innocent purchaser for value. 10101 was conducted by petitioner’s representatives. In 1978.4 has. like Alvarez. He sold it to respondent Cajes in 1950 for which tax declarations were issued in 1950. & he was asked to vacate the property. Page 21 . a re-appraisal of the property covered by TCT No. COURT OF APPEALS 331 SCRA 267. Jose Alvarez obtained registration of a parcel of land with an area of 1. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. Beduya who. In 1972. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant & shall be entitled to a Certificate of Title under the provisions of this Chapter. Beduya and Sps. 19. Private respondent Cajes was informed that petitioner had become the owner of the land he was occupying.4 has. DBP found out that the land mortgaged by Cajes was included in the land mortgaged by the Sps. represented by G. in his name. The Regional Trial Court-Tagbilaran City rendered a decision declaring petitioner DBP the lawful owner of the entire land on the ground that the decree of registration was binding upon the land. However. Sps. Occupied by Cajes. In 1985. and 1974. which included the 19. were never in possession of the property. offering his 19. It was then discovered that private respondent Cajes was occupying a portion of said land.. petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against him. another mortgage over the land was executed by SAAD Investment Corp.512. more than a year after the foreclosure sale.

Whether or not petitioner bank is a mortgagee in good faith? 2. in the case of banking institutions. At the time of the constitution of the mortgagee. a mortgagee must exercise due diligence before entering into said contract. are expected to exercise more care & prudence than private individuals in their dealings. the mortgagee-bank failed to conduct an ocular inspection. Whether or not petitioner bank can can be considered an innocent purchaser for value? HELD : No. Petitioner was already aware that a person other than the registered owner was in actual possession of the land when it bought the same at the foreclosure sale. Page 22 .” It is a wellsettled rule that a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard. before approving a loan.ISSUES: 1. even those involving registered lands. “A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact which would create a suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man is not an innocent purchaser for value. having been impressed with public interest. While an innocent mortgagee is not expected to conduct an exhaustive investigation on the history of the mortgagor’s title. to send representatives to the premises of the land offered as collateral & to investigate who are the legal owners thereof. Banks.” Judgment AFFIRMED in toto. & then claim that he acted in goof faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. Judicial notice is taken of the standard practice for banks.

the present case was brought by Anacleto’s heirs against the heirs of Carlos. De Santiago & her children maintained that as successors-in-interest of Anacleto.800 sq. 1980. awarded the disputed lots. In 1977. 1978. In the meantime. a criminal case was also filed against the Villanuevas for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. On February 14. DE VILLANUEVA vs. the decrees of registration covering the subject lots were issued & OCTs were transcribed in the name of Antonio Angeles on December 27. On February 28. husband of respondent Lina Santiago. 1979. On February 26. Victorino Santiago filed an action for forcible entry against Carlos Villanueva & his wife. to Spouses Antonio & Rosario Angeles. February 1. the land registration court. 1991. in a final decision. In their complaint dated July 30. On February 22. 1979. 2001 FACTS: On December 20. the Santiagos sued the Villanuevas for forcible entry. They sold the lots to Victorino Santiago in 1967 who converted some parcels into fishponds. Hence. Waiver & Quitclaim over the lots in favour of Anacleto Santiago. Carlos Villanueva & Anacleto Santiago both died.________________________________________________________________________ 14. 1962. for which TCTs were subsequenty issued in the name of Anacleto Santiago. 1978. no decree of registration had yet been issued for the said lots despite the final judgment in the land registration case. VDA. measuring 98. the vendee. The Santiagos asked the court the Viilanuevas to vacate the lots and restore to them possession & ownership of the lots registered in their precedessor’s name. At the time of the last sale. which was dismissed since Victorino had already sold the property to Spouses Santiago. petitioner Estrelita Villanueva. use & enjoyment of the fishponds for the last 12 years by Carlos & now. m. De Villanueva. as original owner & vendor. by the latter’s widow. and their children. Lina Vda. executed a Deed of Confirmation Sale. Santiago sold the lots to Anacleto Santiago. Antonio Angeles. Estrelita Vda. 1978. COURT OF APPEALS 351 SCRA 12. The lots were declared for taxation purposes. they were unlawfully deprived of the possession. On December 12. Page 23 .

1992. this petition. In land cases. The high court ruled that respondent’s titles constituted indefeasible proof of ownership which entitles them to possession of the properties. HELD : Yes. open and notorious possession. judgment AFFIRMED with modifications. It is a notice to the whole world and as such. Hence. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s certificate of title constitutes valid and indefeasible proof of ownership. neither can it be defeated by prescription. A title once registered under the Torrens system cannot be defeated by adverse. The CA reversed the RTC decision. the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.In a decision dated December 18. the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and res judicata. Petition DENIED. all persons are bound by it and no one can plead ignorance of the registration. Page 24 .

who in turn purchased the property from Vicente Espino. De F. under Act No. the Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Guillermo Francisco declaring that they were the owners of the parcels of land. According to them. On August 25.768 located at Bugallon. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated February 13. Page 25 . Hence. 1985. who purchased the same from Antonio Fernandez. Francisco who was the registered owner of a parcel of land containing an area of 3. 1995. Antonio Cervantes denied the allegations in the complaint & in defense. the latter being known as a mere trustee or overseer. notorious. Said heirs discovered that Antonio Cervantes & spouses Armando Abad were illegally occupying & had declared in their names certain portions of said property. and Marcelino Nievera from Estefania Ignacio Vda. who in turn earlier purchased the property from Guillermo Francisco’s predecessorsin-interest. exclusive. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court in toto. 1987. petitioners refused to do so. 1994. open & continuous long before the alleged registration of the subject property in the name of Antonio Francisco. Guillermo Francisco. spouses Armando Abad alleged that their possession was lawful and in concept of an owner for more than 70 years dating back before 1920. Despite demands to vacate the subject property. filed an amended complaint alleging that they were the heirs of the late Antonio G. whose possession & ownership of the property was public. et. In his answer.al.________________________________________________________________________ 15. The defendants were ordered to vacate immediately the parcel of land and pay actual damages. Cervantes prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. the late Juan Abad. Pangasinan. On October 28. an action for recovery of land was filed by Guillermo Francisco. the land was purchased by their parent. claimed legal possession over one of the parcels of land in question alleging that he and his siblings inherited the land from their late father Tranquilino Cervantes who purchased the same in 1947 from Juan Abad (deceased). Totanez. 496. On the other hand. COURT OF APPEALS 354 SCRA 47 FACTS: On July 8. CERVANTES vs.

neither can it be defeated by prescription. Petitioners cannot prove their ownership of the subject parcels of land through tax declarations & corresponding tax receipts inasmuch as they are not conclusive evidence of ownership. in this case. open & notorious possession. Petitioners have no right over the land. Antonio Francisco. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners Cervantes & Abad have a right to the parcels of land they were occupying? HELD: No. Petition DENIED. Page 26 . A title once registered under the Torrens System cannot be defeated even by adverse.

& for payment of damages. in their answer. private respondent Alberta ZaragozaMorgan filed a complaint against Spouses Florentino & Erlinda. HELD: Page 27 . The shares of her brothers & sisters were given to them in advance by way of deed of sale but without consideration. He had four children: Gloria. Florentino and Alberta. herein petitioners. They denied knowledge of the alleged intention of their father to convey said lots to Alberta & that there was partitioning of the estate of their father during his lifetime. for delivery of her inheritance share. in his lifetime.________________________________________________________________________ 16. denied knowledge of an alleged distribution by way of deeds of sale to them by their father. He died intestate & was survived by his four children. however. 1986. COURT OF APPEALS 341 SCRA 309 FACTS: Flavio Zaragoza Cano was the registered owner of certain parcels of land situated at the Province of Iloilo. the Regional Trial Court of Ilo-ilo promulgated its decision. On October 7. while lot 943 was sold by him to them for valuable considerations. 1981. Petitioners Florentino & Erlinda. She further alleged that her father. all surnamed Zaragoza. Sps. adjudicating lot 871 in then name of Flavio Zaragoza Camo to Plaintiff Alberta Zaragoza-Morgan ISSUE: Whether or not that question regarding the validity of the Certificate of Title issued in the name of petitioner is allowed in this petition. ZARAGOZA vs. while her share was not conveyed by way of deed of sale because she became an American citizen & was prohibited to acquire land in the Philippines except by hereditary succession. Zacariaz. partitioned the aforecited properties among his 4 children. On December 28. consisting of Lots 943 & 871. admitted their affinity with private respondent & the allegations on the properties of their father. They. They said that lot 871 was still registered in the name of their father. She Claimed that she was a naturalborn Filipino citizen & the youngest child of Flavio.

the court held that a certificate of title accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee eld by its owner. modified. once registered. is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of the owners. with very few exceptions. should not thereafter be impugned. altered. In the case of Halili. The petition is a collateral attack. The title. otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree which provides: Sec. The certificate. enlarged or diminished. changed. except in direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise.No. or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. It cannot be altered. Page 28 . 48. It is not allowed by Section 48 of the PD 1529. Certificate not subject to collateral attack-A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. in the absence of fraud. all security in registered titles would be lost. modified.

petitioner was served a copy of the petition for certiorari filed by respondent bank. PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION 353 SCRA 292 FACTS: On 29 December 1925. the loans remained unpaid. the register of deeds cancelled respondent bank’s title and issued a new title in the name of respondent Aguinaldo. petitioner bought from respondent Helen Aguinaldo a parcel of land at Valley Golf Subdivision Antipolo. After payment of the agreed purchase price. The lot was then registered in the name of respondent Aguinaldo. Respondent bank then initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding on the real estate mortgage. before the expiration of the redemption period of one year. She subsequently sold the lot to petitioner. On 15 April 1995. In the public sale. Upon presentation of the court’s decision and certification. Page 29 . Despite said demands. On 29 February 1996. two months after he bought the property. respondent Aguinaldo filed a complaint for the nullification of the aforesaid foreclosure proceeding._______________________________________________________________________ 17. Upon maturity of these loans. the trial court rendered its decision against the respondent. the title was cancelled and a new one in the name of petitioner was issued. the mortgage properties were sold to respondent bank as the highest bidder. liens or encumbrances appeared on the said title. On 15 February 1990. TAN vs. respondent bank sent demand letter to respondent Aguinaldo. It appeared that respondent Aguinaldo and her husband obtained loans from respondent bank. To secure payment of this obligation. The respondent bank filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision had become final and executor. they executed a real estate mortgage over three parcels of land in favor of the respondent bank-PBC. It was only then that petitioner learned that the lot he bought from respondent was subject between her and respondent bank. No claims. Rizal. Said petition stated that said petitioner was being sued as a nominal party as the new registered owner of the said parcel of land.

As such. In its decision the CA reinstate said titles in the name of the respondent PBC. liens or encumbrances appearing thereon. recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens System. Page 30 . modified or cancelled only in direct proceeding in accordance with law. should be the first to accept the validity of the titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law is satisfied. It must be noted that petitioner’s title was irregularly issued after the lot covered by the same was sold to him by respondent Aguinaldo. Having obtained a valid title over the subject lot. he should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition is ineffectual after all. which was then free from any claims. The petitioner’s title is valid. The Government. The further consequence would be the land conflicts could be even more numerous and complex than they are now possibly also more abrasive. public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. if not even violent.Respondent bank filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the trial court but the same was denied. This would not only be unfair to him. It is well settled that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered. petitioner is entitled t protection against indirect attacks against his title. If these were permitted. It then brought the case to the CA by way of certiorari and thereafter moved for partial reconsideration praying for the reinstatement of the Transfer Certificates of Title. petitioner’s title can only be challenged in a direct attack/proceeding. Petitioner relied on the seller’s title. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller’s title thereto is valid. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s title over the said parcel of land is valid? HELD: Yes.

________________________________________________________________________ 18. “Trabasas has no equitable right to the possession of the land under litigation.” Trabasas appealed to the CA. On April 16. 1990. 1983. the Bureau of Lands in Pagadian City issued in favor of Camilo Lasola a Homestead Patent covering one parcel of land. the RD issued an OCT in his name. that petitioners In 1987. OMANDAM vs. On April 28. 1991 FACTS: On January 29. Sometime in 1984. In 1989. The CA reversed RTC decision. who claimed that she was the owner of such land. The RTC issued its decision (1993) declaring that neither respondents (Trabasas) nor their predecessors-in-interest were ever in possession of the land. Sometime in 1978. COURT OF APPEALS 349 SCRA 483. the same lot was bought by (respondent) Blas Trabasas from Dolores Sayson. Trabasas acquired a new certificate of title. January 18. Spouses Trabasas filed a complaint against Omandan for recovery of possession and/or ownership of the subject land with the RTC. Trabasas repurchased the same land from Lasola. It ordered (petitioners) Omandam and Itom to vacate the land and surrender it to the respondents (Trabasases) =) ISSUE: Whether or not the courts have jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of decree or registration issued by the Director of Lands? HELD: Page 31 . Omandam protested Lasola’s homestead patent before the Bureau and prayed for the cancellation of the OCT. In the same year. Trabasas discovered Omandam and Itom had occupied the land. 1974.

FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. Commonwealth Act no 141 (Public Land Act) gives in its sections 3 and 4 to the Director of Lands primarily and to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now the Secretary of DENR) ultimately the authority to dispose and manage public lands. WHICH IS THE CONTESTED HOMESTEAD AREA. THE TRIAL COURT THEN ORDERED THE CANCELLATION OF RESPONDENTS’ TITLE AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW ONE. Omandam filed the protest with the Bureau of Lands. The trial court held that petitioners were entitled to a declaration of equitable possession over the area in question. on appeal. IN EFFECT. Page 32 . Thereafter. HAD PRIOR JURISDICTION OVER THE PATENT ON THE SUBJECT MATTER. Trabasas instituted the present action in the Regional Trial Court for recovery of possession and/or ownership. THE COURT’S ORDER REVERSED THE AWARD MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS IN FAVOR OF LASOLA. such decree. Nineteen years after. Only the DENR secretary can review. THE DENR UNDER CA 141. It will be recalled that the Bureau of Lands approved Lasola’s homestead application on May 21. The courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the decree of registration issued by the Director of Lands. 1968. in 1987. Courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of decree or registration issued by the Director of Lands.No. THIS REVERSAL WAS IN ERROR.

” ISSUE: Whether or not the courts can reclassify the subject public land. opposed the application on the principal ground that the land applied for was WITHIN THE UNCLASSIFIED REGION of Obando.. The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the Government (Bureau of Forest Development) and not of the Courts. The Republic of the Phil. represented by the Dir of the Bureau of Forest Development. however long. The Trial Court ordered registration of the subject land in favor of the Valerianos. whatever possession applicants (Valeriano) may have had. private respondents claimed that they were the co-owners in fee simple of the land partly through inheritance and partly by purchase and that. In their application in 1976. It adjoined the Kailogan River and private respondent Valeriano had converted it into a fishpond. COURT OF APPEALS 171 SCRA 71. Courts cannot reclassify.. This was affirmed by the CA which said in part that “since the subject property is entirely devoted to fishpond purposes. DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. In the absence of such classification. Bulacan.. The conversion of the subject property into a fishpond by Applicants does not automatically render the property as alienable and disposable. it was not within any forest or military reservation. Since the subject property is still unclassified. it cannot be categorized as part of forest lands. 1966 FACTS: The land in question was situated in Obando.________________________________________________________________________ 19. The recommendation of the District Forester for release of subject property from unclassified region is not the ultimate word on the matter. the land remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered open to disposition. cannot ripen into private ownership. Page 33 . and. HELD: No. Bulacan and that such area was denominated as FOREST LANDS-did not form part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public domain. it’s beyond their competence and jurisdiction.

1959 when the present action was instituted in the trial court. secured a Free Patent and an Original Certificate of Title over a public land situated in Roxas. and ordering Abanilla to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Isabela the Original Certificate of Title. Defendant-appellant claimed that the lower court erred in ordering the cancellation of both free Patent & Original Certificate of Title issued in her name and in not dismissing the action considering that a period of six years and six months had already elapsed from February 1953 when the patent was issued to August 11. Isabela. Said free patent application included portions of land occupied by Esteban Esquivel & Wilson Nueasa who bought the land from Dominador Cullanan who also bought the same from defendant-appellant Abanilla. since the occupancy of Esquivel was merely tolerated by her and was never adverse and Wilson Nuesa’s occupancy never affected her right over the portion he claims because the sale made by her to Dominador Cullanan was void ab initio. 1983 FACTS: Plaintiff-appellee (Director of Lands) in his complaint. were lawful. ordering the Director of Lands to cancel the said patent and issue another patent in favor of Abanilla. who was thereby ordered to cancel the same.\ HELD: Page 34 . Defendant-appellant Abanilla in her answer alleged that her application for a free patent over a parcel of public land & the subsequent issuance of an Original Certificate of Title.DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. alleged that defendant-appellant (Maria Abanilla) had. ISSUE: Whether or not the patent and original certificate of title issued by virtue of the said patent can still be cancelled despite the lapse of six (6) years and six (6) months. through fraudulent means. The Trial Court entered judgment declaring the Free Patent and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title null and void. ABANILLA 124 SCRA 358. excluding the respective portions of land possessed by Esquivel & Nuesa.________________________________________________________________________ 20.

or permit granted. any may still file action for cancellation of certificate of title even after six years from its issuance. title. The lapse of one (1) year period within which a decree of title may be reopened for fraud would not prevent the cancellation thereof. The State is not bound by the period of prescription stated in Sec. would be the height of absurdity. Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. for to hold that a title had been secured through fraud or in violation of the law. The patent can still be cancelled. Page 35 . Act 496. Registration should not be a shielf of fraud in securing title.Yes. 141. as amended. expressly provides that any false statement in the application. 38. which is an essential condition of the patent or title “shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession.” The Doctrine of Indefeasibility of Torrens Title does not apply to free patent secured through fraud since said grant is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

. The Court however denied the claims of defendants for Page 36 . COURT OF APPEALS 214 SCRA 446. the deceased grandmother of Juliana Parel. et. the case was filed. Fausta Padre declared the land for taxation purpose in her name. 2964 – The land was originally owned by Calixto Paa who gave the same to Sabas Paa without a deed of transfer. the predecessors-in-interest of defendant Juliana Pacleb Parel. Civil Case No. et. she sold a portion of the land to Avelina Paranada. The complaint was filed because Juliana Pacleb Parel cut down some trees on the portion of the land in question. The Court found defendants-Parel. the land was in the possession of their grandfather. to have been in possession under claim of ownership. Bantay. He paid realty taxes to evidence his possession. defendant Juliana Pacleb Parel. thru two (2) civil cases they filed before the lower court where the latter made its findings of facts and conclusion. al. On December 2. continuously. contended that the parcel of land was formerly owned by the late Silvestre Paa who sold it to Blas Pacleb without a deed of transfer.al. On the other hand. After carefully considering the evidence adduced by the parties. to wit: 1. Hence.PADRE vs. it was presumed that defendants were the owners. sought to quiet title on two (2) parcels of land situated at Taleb. Ilocos Sure.________________________________________________________________________ 21. 1966. The late Jose Padre had been in possession of the subject land up to the time it was given to Fausta. 2954 – The land was originally owned by Jose Padre who gave it to Fausta Padre without a Deed of Transfer. grandmother & father under similar circumstances. Calixto declared the land for taxation purposes in his name. had not established their cause of preponderance of evidence. the Court found that the plaintiffs-Padre. al. and uninterruptedly and long before that. married to Vicente Viernes. one of the defendants and a portion of it was the land of Roman Pacleb.al. 1992 FACTS: Plaintiffs Agripino Padre. et. 2. Fausta was also in possession of the property until the years 1973-1975 when Juliana Pacleb Parel cut down trees on the land. Being in actual possession under claim of ownership. Civil Case No.. Some of the adjoining lots were the properties of Bartola Pero. et. The defendants in both Civil Cases were in actual possession of the land in dispute.

2. The plaintiff had the right to litigate & it was not sound public policy to punish a party by making him pay damages. The Director of Lands possesses the competence of the regular courts over possessory actions. the public character of the land notwithstanding. The Regional Trial Court has the power to ascertain who has prior possession of public lands.damages. WON the Director of Lands possesses the competence of the regular courts over possessory actions? 2. the appellants raised several errors of the lower court. Petition DISMISSED. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation for having exercised their right erroneously xxx. Page 37 . ISSUES: 1. WON the Regional Trial Court has the power to ascertain who has prior possession of public lands? HELD: 1. The jurisdiction of courts in possessory actions involving public lands is limited to the determination of who has the actual physical possession or occupation of the land in question or the better right of possession. attorney’s fees & expenses of litigation. In this appeal. Jurisdiction: The authority given to the Lands Department over the disposition of public lands does not exclude the courts from their jurisdiction over possessory action. YES. YES.

an OCT was issued in her name on November 14. 159 was issued in the name of Jose Aliwalas. 1936. After being given due course. 3563 of the Arayat Cadastre was originally a part of the public domain & it was so declared on October 12. the Director of Lands granted the application and issued in favor of Jose Aliwalas Homestead Patent No. son of Dr. 1933.. Jose Aliwalas died and the administration and management of the land was assumed by Jose Aliwalas Jr. thru its District Land Office in Pampanga. On December 11. this application was approved by the Director of Lands who issued a Free Patent covering the lot. 38588. defendant Ponciano Tengco in representation of the defendants Heirs of Gregorio Tengco filed an application with the Bureau of Lands. Dr. This patent was duly registered in the Register of Deeds of Pampanga on April 8. HEIRS OF GREGORIO TENGCO vs. De Aliwalas. Dr. 1937. Lot No. This was the reason why no more record pertaining the Page 38 . Thereafter. the lot was allotted in favor of the plaintiff Victoria Vda. The defendant-Heirs of Gregorio Tengco also adduced evidence showing that their late grandfather Gregorio Tengco had occupied the land exclusively years before he died in 1934. Thereafter. De Aliwalas against the Heirs of Gregorio Tengco. Aliwalas. From then on. OCT No. On rebuttal. In 1962. He alleged that this parcel of land had been occupied and cultivated originally & continuously thereafter by Gregorio Tengco. When the property was partitioned among Dr. HEIRS OF JOSE ALIWALAS 168 SCRA 198. the Director of Lands & the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. 1966. his children succeeded him in its possession & enjoying the fruits from different trees planted thereon. Plaintiff Aliwalas adduced evidence showing that the pre-war records of the Bureau of Lands pertaining to public land applications were burned during the war as certified by the Bureau of Lands. Jose Aliwalas applied with the Bureau of Lands for the issuance of a homestead patent covering this lot. On the same day. On the other hand.________________________________________________________________________ 22. Aliwalas paid the corresponding realty taxes thereon having declared the land for taxation purposes in his name. Aliwalas’ surviving heirs. 1988 FACTS: The instant case stemmed from an action to quiet title instituted by the late Victorio Vda.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration but same was denied.Homestead Patent issued in favor of Jose Aliwalas in 1936 which gave rise to the issuance of an OCT. and becomes indefeasible & incontrovertible upon the expiration of one (1) year from the date of the promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of the patent. HELD: 1. al. 2. WON an original certificate of title issued on the strength of a homestead patent becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one (1) year from the date of promulgation of the order. It is a well-settled rule that an original certificate of title issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a judicial proceeding. Petition DENIED. ISSUE: 1. et. once registered under the Land Registration Act becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title. the Trial Court rendered judgment declaring the plaintiff Aliwalas as the true owner of the property. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment. Title acquired through a homestead patent registered under the Land Registration Act is imprescriptible. 2. the Heirs of Tengco interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s findings. ordering the Register of Deeds of Pampanga to cancel the TCTS in the name of Cipriano Tengco. No. On the basis of the evidence. prescription cannot operate against the registered owner. Thus. They are not guilty of laches or prescription. this petition. Hence.WON private respondents are guilty of laches or prescription. Yes. An original certificate of title issued on the strength of a homestead patent becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one (1) year from the date of promulgation of the order. Page 39 . as long as the land disposed of is really part of the disposable land of the public domain.. ordering the defendants-Heirs of Gregorio Tengco to vacate the land in question xxxxxxx. A homestead patent.

Seven years later. vs. 1227. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition. al. passing upon the opposition of certain Meynardo Ilagan. et. THE HEIRS OF C. said land is considered registered within th meaning of the Page 40 . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. said patent was duly transmitted to and recorded by the Register of Deeds of said province and a corresponding Certificate of Title was issued in favor of the said heirs. ISSUE: Whether or not a Certificate of Title issued pursuant to a Homestead Patent becomes irrevocable after one year? HELD: Yes. be ordered to surrender the patent and the certificate of title. The Director of Lands filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Mindoro praying that the Homestead Application be declared null and void and the respondent. heirs of Ciriaco Carle. 926 and the corresponding patent was registered and the certificate of title issued to the grantee. CARLE. 105 Phil. Applicant Carle having died in 1942. The Director of Lands thereupon instituted the instant appeal. claiming that as more than one year from the issuance of the Certificate of Title had already elapsed. petitioners’ cause of action was already barred by prescription. The Homestead Patent corresponding to said application was issued to his heirs. The Court dismissed the petition on the ground that said action was filed beyond the period of limitation provided for by law. Oriental Mindoro.________________________________________________________________________ 23. the Director of Lands declared the said patent inoperative in so far as it covers a certain porition designated and adjudged in favor of the oppositor who is a holder of another homestead application for the reason that the inclusion of the aforementioned area in the patent was erroneous. Where a land was granted by the government to a private individual as a homestead under the provisions of Act No. 1959 FACTS: Ciriaco Carle filed a Homestead Application over a parcel of land located in Pola. etc.

The title to the land thus granted and registered may no longer be the subject of any inquiry. Page 41 . A Certificate of Title issued pursuant to a Homestead Patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued a consequence of a judicial proceeding. decision. or judgment in a cadastral proceeding. as long as the land disposed of is really a part of the disposable land of the public domain and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance.Land Registration Act.

misrepresentation and by mistake. Bumanglag and his family entered the land and cultivated a “greater portion” thereof. but Ramelo refused to vacate. Isabela which was given due course by the Director of Lands.________________________________________________________________________ 24. On 1947. deceit. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was of no avail because a patent had already been issued to Ramelo. the Director of Lands rendered a decision rejecting Bumanglag’s homestead application and gave due course to defendantRamelo’s application for the same land. INGARAN. filed a homestead application for a tract of land in Echague. he intended to submit final proof of his right to a patent but the war broke out. defendant Ramelo entered the land through force and deceit. al. plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. vs. 2. continued possession of the land applied for and Plaintiff Inocencia Ingaran filed a new homestead application for the same tract of land. his heirs’ herein plaintiff. Prudencio Bumanglag. Plaintiff Ingaran complained to the Local District Land Officer who wrote a letter to said Ramelo advising him to desist from his occupation of the land because Homestead Application of Bumanglag was still subsisting. 107 Phil 498. Plaintiff did not acquire vested right over the land in question. The Director of Lands issued a Homestead Patent and from which an Original Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Federico Ramelo. RAMELO. Whether or not Plaintiff acquired vested right over the land in question. Whether or not a Certificate of Title issue pursuant to a Homestead Patent becomes irrevocable after one year. HELD: No. et. In 1946. et. After Bumanglag’s death. Plaintiffs alleged that they had acquired a vested right over the land in litigation and that Ramelo’s title and patent were secured through fraud. ISSUES: 1. that having worked the land for sometime. with grave abuse of discretion of the land officials.al. Page 42 . collusion. 1960 FACTS: In 1936.

plaintiffs merely alleged in their complaint that an “intention to make final proof was submitted to the proper authorities. A certificate of title issued pursuant to a Homestead Patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued as a consequence of a judicial proceeding and becomes indefeasible & incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance.” No such final proof appears to have actually been presented to show compliance with the requirements of the law as warrant the issuance of a patent. In the present case. a Certificate of Title issued pursuant to a Homestead Patent becomes irrevocable after one year. Page 43 . Yes.An applicant may be said to have acquired a vested right over the homestead only when his application has been perfected by the presentation of the final proof and its approval by the Director of Lands.

Page 44 . Defendant Padillas wrote the plaintiffs demanding the latter to vacate the premises reclaimed and occupied by the said plaintiffs because said defendants would bulldoze. Sometime in 1958. level and fill up the same in order to construct improvements. deceit and misrepresentation. defendant sold the land to defendant Edgar Woolbright in violation of Sec.R. bulldozing. No. 45 SCRA 44 FACTS: The late Juan Padilla. May 18. Juan Padilla and his heirs Defendant Padillas succeeded in obtaining the approval of the Director of Lands of their Homestead Application without excluding therefrom the foreshore and marshy lands as well as the areas reclaimed and occupied by the plaintiffs and covered by plaintiff’s applications. as amended by Commonwealth Act No. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Padillas pretended to the Bureau of Lands-Manila that their Homestead Application entirely covered an area of land which alone they occupied and cultivated. they constructed their dwelliungs and consequently filed with the Bureau of Lands applications for lease on the areas reclaimed and occupied by them. They also alleged that subsequent to the issuance of patent and title through fraud. the truth of the matter being more than half of the area applied by them for homestead was foreshore. Plaintiffs prayed for the cancellation of title and issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the defendants from entering into the lands reclaimed and occupied by the plaintiffs and from destroying. marshy and covered by sea and a portion of which was reclaimed and occupied by plaintiffs long before the issuance of the patent & title in defendant’s favor. was the applicant of a public land under Homestead Application with the Bureau of Lands from which the heirs of said Juan Padilla were issued Original Certificate of Title which was transcribed in the Register Book of the Province of Cebu. 27559. leveling or filling up of the aforesaid areas. the predecessor-in-interest of defendants Emilio Padilla & Alberto Padilla.________________________________________________________________________ 25. 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. PADILLA G. LOPEZ vs. 1972. 456. the plaintiffs began reclaiming the area covered by the waters across the shores of Mabaling Cebu City and as soon as the same became tenantable. Some also filed with the Bureau of Lands miscellaneous sales application.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not defendant’s title is susceptible to collateral attack. nor to question the sale of homestead allegedly within fiveyear prohibitory period of Section 118 of the Public Land Act. No. the authority to institute the action on behalf of the Republic for cancellation of defendants’ title and for the reversion of the homestead to the government. The Torrens Title issued to defendants in pursuance of the homestead patent is no longer susceptible of collateral attack through the present action filed by the plaintiff who. Whether or not Plaintiffs are the proper parties to bring the action. Page 45 . 2. as mere applicants of revocable lease. No. HELD: 1. Section 101 of the Public Land Act vests on the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead. Plaintiffs are not the proper parties to bring the action. 2. have no personality or legal interest in the first place to institute the action. permits or miscellaneous applications of what is now concededly title property of private ownership.

________________________________________________________________________ 26. PAMINTUAN vs. Cadastral proceedings are authorized and regulated by Act No.” Sec. In a cadastral case. 496. 540 was thereupon issued to him in 1918.” Page 46 . HELD: No. the Court has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of a land already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same land is null and void. the aforesaid lot number 625 was decreed in favor of FLORENTINO PAMINTUAN by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and that Certificate of Title No. 1917. ISSUE: Whether or not courts have jurisdiction to decree again a registration of a land already decreed in an earlier land registration case. The jurisdiction of the court in cadastral cases over land already registered is limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands. Pamintuan inadvertently failed to claim the lot at the trial of the cadastral case and the Court of First Instance awarded it to the respondents (Nicomedes. This case embraced the district in which the lot in question was situated and the lot was given its cadastral number in the proceedings were pending under Act No. Maria. Mercedes. SAN AGUSTIN (Judge) 43 Phil 558. 11 of it states “xxxx the settlement and adjudication of land title under the Cadastral Act is exactly that provided for in the Land Registration Act No. In the meantime. 2259xxxxIts subject is “settlement and adjudication of land titles. 1982 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari. requiring the respondent judge to certify to the Supreme Court the record in land registration case number 11732 and the record of Cadastral Case No. The record shows that in Land Registration Case No. 132. 496. as pertains to 625. 132 was instituted. Arosa & Eusebia ESPINOSA) and ordered the cancellation of certificate of title number 540. 11732 & under the date April 19. Cadastral Case No.

That in 1928. ________________________________________________________________________ 27. 5261 of the registry of deeds of Tayabas. a new transfer certificate of title no. 2505.Petition GRANTED. - - - - . the land was mortgaged by Tabien to EL HOGAR. the parties agreed on the following facts: That the land in question formerly had OCT 477 (by virtue of a homestead patent) and registered in the registry of deeds of Tayabas in 1921 in favor of TIMOTEO OLVIGA & RAFAEL IGLESIA. That pursuant to the mortgage contract the land in question was extra-judicially sold at public auction & adjudicated to plaintiff. the same land now known as Lot 3912 and covered by OCT 30174 was sold by TIMOTEO OLVIGA to defendant Spouses Bonifacio and Irenia Olviga. EL HOGAR FILIPINO vs. 5617 was issued in favor of the defendants. 5261 & 5617. said mortgage was registered in the registry of deeds of Tayabas and was noted in the TCT No. where the land was located. The case was submitted by the parties based on a stipulation of facts. 1934 FACTS: The Plaintiff is a mutual building and loan association who brought this action to recover from the defendants the title to and possession of a land described in TCT Nos. That in 1931. the court declared EL HOGAR as the absolute owner and ordered the cancellation of TCT 2505 and the issuance in the name of said El Hogar another certificate-TCT No. OLVIGA 60 Phil 17. That in 1931. The certificate of title 447 was cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. Page 47 . both of which were issued by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Tayabas.That in 1929. 2505 issued in 1928 in favor of GENARO TABIEN.

496 (Land Registration Act). (Aquino vs. Page 48 . 496.The court held that the titles (TCT 2205) obtained by Tabien and the plaintiff should not prevail over those subsequently obtained by the defendants on the ground that the former were issued in a cadastral proceeding. both take the nature of judicial proceedings and for both the decree of registration issued is conclusive and final. 926 and the corresponding patent was registered and issued to the grantee. The plaintiff avers that the court erred in not declaring it as owner of the land in question. ISSUE: Should Tabien’s title and that of plaintiff prevail over that of the defendant spouse. Lukban & Liwanag) “Title to land thus granted and registered may no longer be subject of an inquiry xxx “ Since the title of Tabien and the plaintiff were issued in accordance with the provisions of Act No.” (Manalo vs. and the latter in accordance with Section 22 of Act No. said land is considered REGISTERED within the meaning of the Land Registration Act No. 496. the same shall have all the characteristics of IRREVOCABLE TORRENS TITLE. and since the title of Tabien is prior to that issued for the defendant spouses Bonifacio Perez & Irinea Olviga. Director of Lands) “Where a land was granted by the government to a private individual as homesteader under the provisions of Act No. Because the proceedings under the Land Registration Law and under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Public Land Law are the same in that both are against the whole world. on the ground that the former title was issued in a cadastral proceeding? HELD: Yes.

alleging that the reasons for the motion to dismiss did not appear in the application but were mere assertions of the parties & that the Trial Court had jurisdiction to consider the application even though the lots were already covered by certificates of title. a certificate of title becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title. et. 496.________________________________________________________________________ 28.) filed a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to decree registration of the lots respectively claimed by Jose Duran. such land shall be registered land for all purposes under this Act. Sec. On August 27. al. The lower court dismissed and rendered successively the 2 orders of dismissal appealed from. The applicants filed their objection to the motion. 1958. the oppositors filed their opposition to the application. Jose O. On April 20. 1954. Once registered under Act No. 122 of of Act 496 provides that. the oppositors (Bernabe Olivia. al. as said lots were already registered in their names attaching therewith the original certificates of title.” Page 49 . “xxxx After due registration and issue of the certificate and owner’s duplicate. DURAN vs. the case was heard initially and on May 5. 1952. 1961 FACTS: On December 3. ISSUE: May a certificate of title based on public land patent once registered becomes indefeasible as a Torrenst Title? HELD: Yes. Duran & Teresa Diaz Vda. De Guzman filed an application for the registration in their names of 16 lots with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. 1954. OLIVIA 113 Phil 144. et.

They and their predecessors-in-interest had been in an actual. They were the co-owners pro-indiviso of the parcel of land described in the complaint which was covered by OCT No. 1089 in the name of DIEGO PAJOMAYO. 39 SCRA 676 FACTS: Sometime in 1963. 3. the Pajomayos filed with the Court of First Instance of Urdaneta Pangasinan a complaint. 14034 issued by the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan.PAJOMAYO vs. 3. 33676. They were the exclusive owners of a parcel of land covered by OCT No. when the defendants dispossessed them of said property. MANIPON G. JUNE 1971. 2. In their answer. issued by the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. alleging that: 1. alleged that: 1. peaceful & uninterrupted possession of the said property in the concept of owners for a period of more than 70 years until the early part of the year 1956. after denying some of the complaint. Page 50 .________________________________________________________________________ 29. The plaintiffs prayed that they be declared the lawful owners pro-indiviso (undivided) of the land in question. and that the defendants be ordered to vacate the land. and that apparently the plaintiffs were claiming the same parcel of land.R. The said land having been adjudicated to them in the cadastral proceedings of the Malsique Cadastre. the defendants. They had acquired the land as an inheritance from their late father Diego Pajomayo. They had acquired the land in their answer by their inheritance from their deceased father Pioquinto Manipon and. 2.

1089 issued to their father. grant. the certificate of title issued in virtue of said patent has the force and effect of a Torrens Title under the Land Registration Act. or conveyance in behalf of the government to cause such instrument before its delivery to grantee. issued in Cadastral Case No.F. The Register of Deeds of Pangasinan was ordered to cancel OCT No. 1964. Sec. it has been ruled by this court that once a homestead patent granted in accordance with the Public Land Act is registered pursuant to Sec. 14034 of herein appellants null and void. 122 of Act 496 (Land Registration Act). 1089 of the plaintiffs should be upheld.I of Pangasinan rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs.4. The defendants appealed the decision of the lower court and assigned the following error: The lower court erred in declaring OCT No. 122 of the Land Registration Act provides that it shall be the duty of the official using the instrument of alienation. the C. Based on these stipulations of facts. peaceful and adverse possession of said land for more than 70 years. 91 of Malasique Cadastre. 14034 in the name of Rodrigo Manipon. ISSUE: Which of the two original certificates of title should prevail? The OCT 1089 held by plaintiffs-appellees or OCT 14034 held by defendantsappellants? HELD: The appeal has no merit and the OCT No. Page 51 .They and their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual. Diego Pajomayo in 1931 by virtue of a free patent that was granted to him. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs based their claim of title to the land in question on OCT No. The law requires that a homestead patent must be registered in the office of the register of deeds of the province where the land lies. to be filed with the Register of Deeds for the province where the land liesxxxx Thus. and Original Certificate of Title No. It ordered the defendants (Manipon) to vacate the land in question & deliver possession thereof to the former who were entitled thereto as heirs of Diego Pajomayo who were declared the legal and lawful owner of the said property. the counsels for the parties submitted to the court a stipulation of facts xxxx “that the parties agree that the land in question is covered by Two Certificates of Title. one in the name of Diego Pajomayo under Original Certificate of Title No. 14034. When the case was called for trial on July 6. 1089 issued under Free Patent.

the earlier date must prevail as between the original parties. when one of the two titles is held to be superior over the other. and the former should be cancelled. while OCT 1089 was issued in 1931. Necessarily. one should be declared null and void and should be ordered cancelled. the latter certificate of title-that of the plaintiffs’ should prevail. under the law and the authorities. It appearing that OCT No.It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that where two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part. 14034 was issued in 1957. Page 52 .

Page 53 . Andres & Maria sired two childrenEsperanze. continued to be in peaceful and quiet possession of subject land. the children. the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith. Maria Espiritu. al. containing an area of 22. et. 1999 FACTS: The spouses Andres Adona & Leoncia Abad. HELD: No. Iba. Had they made further investigations. After Andres Adona died. After Maria Espiritu had died in 1945. among them was Carmen Adona. without such inquiry. ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant-buyers were in good faith and for value. During his lifetime. Zambales. Following the death of Leoncia Abad in 1923. all surnamed David. of Andres Adona by his marriage with Leoncia Abad. vs. 398 over the land in her name. Andres Adona applied for a homestead patent over a parcel of agricultural land located at Dirita. Maria Espiritu likewise had a child by her previous marriage. Fulgencio Lemque. The rule is settled that a buyer of a real property which is in the possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. Nora and Dionisio (among the herein private respondents). CRISTITO MALAY. Otherwise. 318 SCRA 711. represented herein by her heirs. al.5776 hectares. Carmen married Filomeno Malay. a widow. they would have discovered that plaintiffs were in possession of the land under a claim of ownership.________________________________________________________________________ 30. were blessed with five children. November 19. without the benefit of marriage. now herein represented also by his own heirs. Andres Adona cohabited with Maria Espiritu. three children were begotten by the marriage. and Vicente Adona. The buyer who has failed to know or discover that the land sold to him is in the adverse possession of another buyer in bad faith. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. succeeded in obtaining Original Certificate of Title No. predecessor-in-interest of herein petitioners. ERNESTO DAVIT. It is unbelievable that the defendant-buyers would not have noticed the plaintiffs who were in possession of the land when the defendant buyers inspected the same. et. namely Cristitito. as well as descendants. husband and wife for a good number of years.

COURT OF APPEALS 361 SCRA 711.70.913. 1991. attorney’s fees and costs. All other claims and counterclaims of the parties were considered waived. 115609 have been nullified by both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court. November 19.320. Azucar Management & Development Corp. executed by petitioner Jerome Solco and respondent DAE Sugar Milling Co. petitioner Solco amended the complaint increasing his demand for actual damages to P 28. Lopingco even without express resolution of the Board of Dirctors authorizing him to enter into such compromise.520. 1991. an action for damages totaling to P 11. On May 27. On September 12. Thus. HELD: No. claiming that the sugar quedans he had purchased out to be worthless. with preliminary attachment against respondents DAE Sugar Milling Corp. BERNARDO P.. respondent Eduardo Lopingco. Teody Lopingco and Rosita Lopingco. 1992. petitioner Jerome Solco filed with the Regional Trial Corut. Eduardo L. The Court finds the Memorandum of Agreement dated November 25. 1999 FACTS: On August 30. Inc.621. Lopingco.00 moral and exemplary damages. (DAE) void in that Solco and Dae Sugar have nothing to ratify because the levy and sale on execution of TCT No. Quezon City. 1993. Respondents contended that the quedans were owned by the corporation’s controlling stockholder. The parties submitted the “Compromise Agreement” to the Trial Court. Page 54 .. and were merely borrowed by petitioner for use as a collateral for a loan he had intended to obtain from lending institutions. the levy and sale to be implemented or validated are now non-existent. the trial court rendered a judgment approving the compromise agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions and enjoined the parties to comply therewith. ABESAMIS vs..________________________________________________________________________ 31. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents DASUMICO and AZUCAR were bound by the compromise agreement entered into by petitioner and respondent Eduardo R.

Petitioner Liao claims that his predecessor in interest acquired the property through sale certificate Nos. and thus. It is shown. Quezon City. LIAO vs. Decree No. however. the Director of Lands issued certificates of sales to Vicente Salgado over the parcels of land covered by OCT 614. No. No. the Court DENIES the Joint Motion (RE: Settlement Agreement of the Parties) and declares the Memorandum of Agreement. Branch 99 a petition for reconstitution of documents and issuance of certificates of title over certain parcels of land covered by OCT 614. Decree No. 755 has an area of 3. 5975 in accordance with Act No. Lot No.5091 hectares. These sales were void. Lot No. attached thereto as contrary to law. 6667. issued by the Director of Lands is 1913. 777 has 25. Payatas. COURT OF APPEALS 323 SCRA 430. 5975. 1913. HELD: No.0363 hectares.691 hectares.0155 hectares. This is because the sales were not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. VOID. The court ruled the petitioner not owner of the land. 780. and Lot No. January 27. The four lots formed part of the Piedad Estate. 778 and 783) located at Brgy. 781. 783 has 25. 6667. 2000 FACTS: On March 5. ________________________________________________________________________ 32. 3369 (86) authorizing issuance of titles on the basis of sales certificates and technical descriptions as reconstituted by the Land Registration Commission. Estrella Maps claimed that on Jun 16. that the sale certificates were signed by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 777. GLRO Rec. JESUS P. 783. The sale involves four (4) parcels of land (Lot Nos. Quezon City. Lot No. 755. In Solid Page 55 . 1120. 1986.WHEREFORE. Estrella Mapa filed with the Regional Trial Court. otherwise known as the Friar Lands Act. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the annulment of the order of the Trial Court in LRC Case No. GLRO Rec. 778 has 24.

In the absence of such approval. dismissing the complaint and declaring Transfer Certificate of Title No. February 15. rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. T16109 of the Registry of Deeds of La Union. 1980. petitioners took possession and assumed ownership of the said property. In view of the invalidity of the sales. Petition DISMISSED.State Multi-Products Corp. petitioners refused to do so and even filed a case for Annulment of TCT and/or Reconveyance with Damages before the same court. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court and private respondent was declared the true and absolute owner of the subject land. private respondent Petra Bilog. C). 1994. La Union. anchored upon the following grounds: (1) The decision (annex a) erred in declaring the deed of partition with sale (exh. 1980. (2) The decision erred in holding that defendants failed to substantiate their claim of ownership and in giving more credence to plaintiff’s testimonial evidence and tax declaration no. She alleged that sometime in 1964 or 1965. [5] the instant Petition was filed. On appeal. AGASEN vs. 16109 in the name of private respondent null and void. petitioners were ordered to turn over the subject land to private respondent. Branch 3. private respondent prayed that she be declared the true and absolute owner of the subject land and petitioners be ordered to turn over possession thereof to her. which case was. however. involving an Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four (8. 1) and the deed of absolute sale (exh. Thus. COURT OF APPEALS 325 SCRA 504. the sales were void. La Union. She alleged that despite demands on them to vacate the land. 2) not authentic and valid. B) and certification of tax payments (exh. 1984. assisted by her husband Felipe Bilog.474) square meter parcel of land registered in her name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with the Regional Trial Court of Agoo. in her complaint. appropriating the fruits therefrom. Accordingly. the Court also said that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale of friar lands. ________________________________________________________________________ 33. 21460 (exh. dismissed on February 12. vs. Court of Appeals. With the denial of petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration on May 20. On November 19. (3) The decision erred in finding/holding that the non-registration of the deed of partition with sale and the deed of absolute sale with the register of deeds made the purchases thereunder "dented" and did not automatically vest title or ownership over the subject property to the buyers. 2000 FACTS: On April 7. the Regional Trial Court of Agoo. there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such sales. Page 56 .

[8] One of the documents. contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into provided all essential requisites are present. as such. 3) containing the memorandum of installment sale by leonora calonge to defendant-appellee fortunata agasen (exh. (5) The decision gravely erred in holding that tct no. 3-a to 3-c) over the parcel of land described in exh. it is not denied that the two subject documents are notarized documents and. The following circumstances all indicate the genuineness and due execution of the subject documents: (1) The subject documents were duly notarized public documents. 2 was not a valid or credible document of transfer. 16109 (exh. only this time. As such. not for validity or enforceability. having alleged the contrary. and (6) The testimony of the lawyer who had notarized one of the subject documents. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. The memorandum of sale appearing in Exhibit "3" is sufficient to prove the sale between petitioner Fortunata Calonge Agasen and her late sister. the previous vendee of the land subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale from private respondent. [9] The subject documents were also attached by petitioners to their Answer where they were alleged as part of the counterclaim. (2) The documents enjoy the legal presumption of validity. are considered public documents which enjoy the presumption of validity as to authenticity and due execution. by any measure. (5) The actual identification and positive testimony of petitioner. A) cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground that it is barred by the rule on indefeasibility of a torrens title after the lapse of one year from the decree of registration. (4) Private respondent’s signature thereon were found genuine by the lower court upon a comparison of her signature thereon with that in her own documentary evidence. overcome the abovementioned evidence and legal presumptions in petitioners’ favor. the Deed of Absolute Sale. it is the original defendant who becomes the plaintiff.(4) The decision erred in holding that the daily notebook (exh. It stands on the same footing and is to be tested by the same rules as if it were an independent action. upon whom the burden of proof rests. was identified by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Maximo Quero. [11] Having failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the said documents. relied upon by petitioners as basis for their claim of ownership. Private respondent’s bare denial of the same cannot. private respondent is deemed to have admitted the same. After all. The legal presumption of validity of petitioners’ duly notarized public documents has not been overcome by preponderant evidence by private respondent. private respondent should have specifically denied under oath their genuineness and due execution. [14] The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience. Issue: ISSUE: Whether or not the two (2) documents. the administering officer who had notarized it. a counterclaim is considered a complaint. are valid. [15] Page 57 . HELD: To begin with. [10] After all. (3) Their genuineness and due execution were not specifically denied under oath by private respondent.

. which the Court of Appeals viewed as having "further darkened the cloud of suspicion which hovered over the questioned documents. Page 58 . dismissed without prejudice. Neither may the compulsory counterclaim of petitioners challenging the title of private respondent be brushed aside as merely a collateral attack which would bar a ruling on the validity of the said title. prompting them to merely interpose their cause of action as a compulsory counterclaim in the lower court. that torrens title can be attacked only for fraud.applies only to original titles and not to subsequent registration.Petitioners have adequately explained why they have not pursued their action for annulment of title against private respondent. the complaint of private respondent was filed two months after the dismissal of their complaint. An action for annulment of title and/or reconveyance which was previously filed by petitioners and interposed in their counterclaim is an action open to them to attack private respondent’s fraudulently acquired title. [19] On the other hand.e. however. by filing an action for annulment of title and/or for reconveyance with damages against private respondent [18] which complaint was." Private respondent herself admits that petitioners were the first to assert their right. the Court of Appeals is likewise in error in holding that private respondent’s title was "vested with the garment of indefeasibility. within one year after the date of the issuance of the decree of registration --.i." The rule on indefeasibility of torrens title --. Finally.

On September 4.00. Miscellaneous Sales Application No. DE GUZMAN 326 SCRA 267. to Eusebio Diones of Takurong. Cotabato. the Board of Liquidators cancelled the award previously given to Eusebio Diones. 3. Whether or not the validity of the patent and the original certificate of title can still be assailed after the lapse of one year from the issuance of the disputed title. De Guzman and Rio Rivera for P 5. Carmen Ty remained the occupant of the land until this time. De Guzman filed with the Board of Liquidators. Page 59 . Bubon.________________________________________________________________________ 34. T-7203 to spouses Rio Rivera and Carolina R. 1973. Whether or not Enrique P. 2000 FACTS: After a public bidding held on March 18. On March 21. and submitted supporting documents. another claimant of Lot 5249 Ts-217. February 23. From the time he purchased the lot. the Register of Deeds of General Santos City issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. the Board of Liquidators awarded 5249 Ts-217 a 450-square meter land situated in Dadiangas. Eusebio Diones transferred his rights over the lot to Enrique P.00 as evidenced by an Agreement of Transfer of Right. authorized Carmen Ty to occupy the land. De Guzman validly obtained the sales patent and the original certificate of title. de Guzman sold the lot to his married daughter and her husband. De Guzman was not in occupation of the lot in question. In 1963. ISSUES: 1. 1955. In 1973. Lucena Ong-Ante’s adverse claim was annotated on the title of the lot. 1950. General Santos City. On November 12. Lucena Ong Ante. The covering deed of sale could not be located and Rio Rivera admitted that his father-in-law Enrique P. 1956. De Guzman (de Guzman. On March 11. De Guzman. de Guzman did not occupy it.000. 00222-E. for brevity) for P 700. ENRIQUE P. Ong Ante paid the corresponding real estate taxes from 1963 until 1980. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Carolina R. 1974.

Hence. The indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. Otherwise. the Court of Appeals held that an action for cancellation of patent or title could not be maintained after the lapse of one year from the date of issuance thereof. the State may institute reversion proceedings even after the lapse of one year. As heretofore stated. In fact. Spouses Rivera is related by consanguinity and affinity to Enrique P.4. However. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals that the presumption of a buyer in good faith must prevail. De Guzman knew that de Guzman was not in possession of the land. 2. The court ruled that the State can assail a patent fraudulently issued by the Director of Lands. Page 60 . the ruling is erroneous. Carmen Ty was in possession of the land since 1963 and paid the real estate taxes thereon. Whether or not the spouses Rivera were innocent purchasers for value. Yes. No. 3. The court ruled negatively. Where public land acquired by an applicant through fraud and misrepresentation. Rio Rivera testified that his father in law was not in possession of the lot in question. The rule is settled that a buyer of real property which is in the possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. HELD: 1. We agree with the trial court that spouses Rivera are not innocent purchasers for value. The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that status. de Guzman misrepresented facts in his application for sales patent. WHEREFORE. the buyer can hardly be regarded as buyer in good faith. it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith. we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the decision of the Court of Appeals. In discharging the burden. Even the Court of Appeals sustained the factual finding of the trial court on this point. There is no question that de Guzman was not in possession of the property. without such inquiry. No.

) filed an Application for Registration of two parcels of unregistered land located in Brgy. Sungay. even though the act is not done or committed with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons. Publication was made in the Official Gazette & the Record Newsweekly. Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud of its detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private confidence. occupant or adverse claimant. presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 10. 1990. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.000. HEIRS OF MANUEL ROXAS vs.000.641 and 10. Maguesun Corp. ISSUE: Page 61 . After an Order of General Default was issued. De Roxas was not named as an adjoining owner.00 two and a half months earlier. COURT OF APPEALS 220 SCRA 309 FACTS: Private respondent Maguesun Management and Development Corporation (Maguesun Corp. The original registration case was docketed as Case No. as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated March 26. bought the property from the original petitioner herein. Zenaida Melliza in turn. Tagaytay City (Lot Nos. De Roxas for P 200. Jose Gil and Leon Luna on the basis of Maguesun Corporation’s application for registration. 1990. Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Branch 18. Since Trinidad de Leon Vda. Tagaytay Cadastre) with an area of 3. In support of its application for registration. the trial court proceeded to hear the land registration case. executed by Zenaida Meliza as vendor and indicating the purchase price to be P 170. 7231 & 7239. respectively. 1990 and an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated March 24.________________________________________________________________________ 35. TG-373 before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. presided over by Judge Julieto Tabiolo.674 square meters. Cad-355. Trinidad de Leon Vda. she was not sent a notice of the proceedings. Notices of the initial hearing were sent by the Land Registration Authority (the National Land Titles & Deeds Registration Authority or NALTDRA) to Hilario Luna.

Whether or nor respondent Maguesun Corporation committed actual fraud in obtaining the decree of registration? HELD: Yes. Petition GRANTED. Palpably. is thus not entitled to the registration decree which the trial court granted in its decision. Although there is no proof of respondent Maguesun Corporation’s direct participation in the execution and preparation of the forged instruments. petitioner has not been interrupted in her more than thirty years of open. Page 62 . Maguesun Corporation intentionally omitted their name. there are sufficient indicia which proves that Maguesun Corporation is not the “innocent purchaser for value” who merits the protection of the law. uninterrupted. She therefore retains title proper and sufficient for original registration over the two parcels of land in question pursuant to Section 14 of Property Registration Decree No. She therefore retains title proper in the concept of an owner over the subject lots by the irregular transaction to Zenaida Melliza. exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of an owner over the subject lots by the irregular transaction to Zenaida Melliza. 1529. Magueson Corp. as having a claim to or as an occupant of the subject property. or that the Roxas family.

a 20. m. was originally owned by Antonio Berosa. 1529 is explicit in requiring that in the application for registration of land titles. VICENTE G. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals was valid. He sold it to Teotimo Berosa. It adjoins Lot 1893. parcel of land identified as Lot 1466. 1961. by Lot # 1891-Antonio Escobedo and on the west. Section 15 of P. also in Gubat. Gubat. the court emphasized that a mere statement of the lack of knowledge of the names of the occupants and Page 63 . by Lot # 1880-Federico Faronas and Lot # 1890-Eugenia Espedido. by Lot # 1446-Silverio Garcia: on the south. declared under Tax No. July 22. situated at San Ignacio. 13237 was cancelled by Tax Declaration No. DIVINA vs. It had no permanent improvement thereon. On March 28. 2001 FACTS: Lot no. it shall state the extent of the search made to find them. HELD: No. 13237 and declared it had a total area of 4.687 sq. Gamos had these two parcels of land under Tax Declaration No.000) square meters and bounded on the north by Lot # 1464-Fausto Ayson and Lot # 1888-Gloria Fajardo: on the east. Sorsogon. Philippines. with an area of TWENTY THOUSAND (20. Cadastral concrete posts were the visible signs of boundary. February 22. 9032 in Gamo’s name. and if not known. 1960.D. a boundary owner of Lot 1893. the application shall also state the full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners if known. The portion was particularly described as: “A parcel of land unirrigated.________________________________________________________________________ 36. COURT OF APPEALS 352 SCRA 527. 1893 located at Gubat. Tax Declaration No. 13038. Sorsogon. designated as Lot 1893 of Antonio Berosa.” Gamos acquired from the heirs of Felix Arimado. valued at Php 760.0867 hectares.00 for the current year in the name of Antonio Berosa.

nobody appeared to oppose the petition. During the course of the proceedings. Rizal. Clearly. the LRA recommended that the appropriate government agencies be ordered to submit their reports to determine whether the land or any portion thereof are covered by land patents were within the forest zone. HELD: No. It should be noted that the report of the LRA that was submitted to the court states that “there are Page 64 . FRANCISCO vs. ISSUE: Weather or not there was fraud committed by the applicant in this case. Petitioner’s claim was clearly meritorious. situated in Brgy. petitioner’s name would not be found on the said survey plan approved by the Bureau of Lands in 1961. Gamos which in turn sold it to respondent in 1970. Cad-688-D of the Cainta-Taytay Cadastre. years before his purchase of the portion of Lot 1893. COURT OF APPEALS 95 SCRA 22. respondent Regiono G. 1834 & 1832. He alleged that he had been in open. continuous.adjoining owners is not sufficient. Teotimo Berosa sold Lot 1893 to Jose P. After respondent Relova presented evidence to establish the jurisdictional facts. Petition GRANTED. The trial court designated a hearing commissioner to receive evidence ex-parte in support of the petition. Thus. therefore. but the search that had been made to find them is necessary. Petitioner acquired the bigger portion of Lot 1893 long after the initial survey of Barrio San Ignacio. exclusive and notorious possession of the said parcels of land since 1958 and. Taytay. ________________________________________________________________________ 37. 1991. 1992. San Juan. through the Office of the Solicitor General. Relova filed a petition with the trial court for the registration of two parcels of land described as Lot Nos. At the initial hearing of the petition on February 28. CRISANTO L. the Land Registration Authority (LRA) submitted its report stating that discrepancies were found after plotting the plans pertaining to the land applied for. The Republic of the Philippines. There was no fraud committed. had acquired the same by prescription. the trial court ordered that a general default be entered against the whole world except the Republic of the Philippines. registered its written opposition to the petition. 1980 FACTS: On October 2. going by the records.

the LRA merely stated that the corrected technical description of Lot 1832. the Esquiviases or the Domalaons? HELD: While the certificates of title in the names of Jose G. Sorsogon was the subject of this action for reconveyance and damages. Domalaon and Elena G. Page 65 . granted the motion of counsel for the applicant to approve the technical corrections for the reason that the correction without need for the re-publication amendment does not appear to be substantial. she extrajudicially constituted this property into a family home. Petition GRANTED ________________________________________________________________________ 38. the decision of the respondent Court reversing that of the RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. m. Domalaon & Jose G.260 sq. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Julia Galpo de Domalaon in favor of her son-in-law. they do not create or vest title. Atty. Domalaon. Elena G. An order issued approving the said technical description to be utilized in the issuance of the corresponding decree of registration. They merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot use the same to protect a usurper from the true owner. Alicia Domalaon-Esquivias. COURT OF APPEALS 272 SCRA 803 FACTS: A 6. WHEREFORE. ISSUE: Who has a better right over the subject property. which is the subject opposition in this case. unassailable and binding against the whole world. In 1950.” It should be noted also that the order of the Land Registration Authority recommended the corrected technical description of Lot 1832 Cad-688-D Cainta-Taytay Cadastre be approved and the applicant be ordered to publish in the official gazette the corrected technical description of Lot 1834 Cad-688 Cainta-Taytay Cadastre. nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud. ESQUIVAS vs. Domalaon were indefeasible. in its order dated October 28. and the two-storey house standing thereon. The subject matter of the deed was the property constituting the family home. So it is clear that with respect to Lot 1832. among other children. Salvador Esquivias.270 square-meter parcel of land in the poblacion of Gubat. Julia Galpo de Domalaon was the owner of a piece of land with an area of 1. husband of Alicia Domalaon. 1993. That is why this court.some corrections in the technical descriptions of the property but the area of the property has remained the same as applied for. neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. were named beneficiaries.

Art. Virgilia Orais was issued a free patent therefor. except when personal rights are involved. and denominated as Lot No.3720 hectares. Domingo Teokemian. However. Davao Oriental with an area of 7. 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. daughter of vendee Andres Orais. with respect to the co-owners. VDA. and. the Deed of Sale was not signed by Felicidad. and even substitute another person in its enjoyment. COURT OF APPEALS 267 SCRA 339 FACTS: On January 16. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Court erred in holding laches in this case. is likewise untenable. The property was owned in common by Daniel and Albertana and their sister Felicidad Teokemian. the property had an area of 11. void. HELD: No. shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.1000 hectares. therefore. DE CABRERA vs. On January 26. although her name was printed therein as one of the vendors. An Original Certificate of Title was issued in her name. assign or mortgage it. and even he may therefore alienate. As surveyed. 493 of the Civil Code provides that “Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. 1950.________________________________________________________________________ 39. 2239. the parcel of land was surveyed in the name of Virgilia Orais. having inherited the same from their late father. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage. 1950. Cateel Cadastre.” Page 66 . The argument that laches does not apply because what was sold to the Cabreras was a definite portion of the community property.

and the donees had acquired a valid title to the portion donated on the date the instrument was executed. IGNACIO GONZALES vs. HELD: No. 239 SCRA 485.5735 hectares. petitioners have not sufficiently proved that the findings Page 67 . Cabanatuan City. private respondents were the farmers and tenants of said spouses who had been cultivating the parcels of land even before World War II either personally or through their predecessors-in-interest. ISSUE: Whether or not the property subject of the deed of donation which was not registered when P. On the other hand. The findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court even if contrary to these of the trial court or the administrative agency. The land subject of the donation is covered by Operation Land Transfer. 27 took effect should be excluded from the Operation Land Transfer. the donation had therefore been perfected in accordance with law. 2001 FACTS: Spouses Ignacio Gonzales and Marina Gonzales were the registered owners of two parcels of agricultural land situated at Barrio Fortaleza. 2742 and denominated as Lot 551-C and Lot 552-A. Lot 551-C contains an area of 46. Herein petitioners were the successors-in-interest or the children and grandchildren of said Gonzales spouses. 1994). No.97 hectares while Lot 552-A contains an area of 37. While the foregoing doctrine is not absolute. and the donor having known of said acceptance. ________________________________________________________________________ 40. Court of Appeals. June 18.D. The donation had been duly accepted by the donees who were already of legal age on the date of the donation and by the legal guardians of the donees who were still minors at that time. so long as such findings are supported by the records or based on substantial evidence (Tabaco vs. COURT OF APPEALS 358 SCRA 598. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.Petition GRANTED.

On June 5. the said proceeding being docketed as Case No. so private respondent extra judicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage. the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City ordered the reconstitution prayed for. It appears from the records that the Olizon spouses failed to pay their aforestated obligation upon its maturity. Certain individuals have continued to prey on the disadvantage. Agrarian laws have never really been effectively implemented. COURT OF APPEALS 236 SCRA 145 FACTS: The factual alpha of the present dispute was sometime in 1967 when the spouses Armando and Iluminada Olizon obtained a loan from respondent Prudential Bank in the amount of P25. 000. respondent bank filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City a petition to reconstitute Transfer Certificate of Title No. the said certificate of sale was duly annotated at the back of petitioner's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1974. As a consequence.complained of are totally devoid of support in the records. 1986. 24604 of the Registry of Deeds of Kalookan City. 1986. 1975. Unfortunately. ________________________________________________________________________ 41. as security therefor. This Court ought to be an instrument in achieving a dignified existence for these farmers free from pernicious restraints and practices.00 and. the farmers who are intended to be protected and uplifted by the said laws find themselves back in their previous plight or even in a more distressing situation. 24604.000 square meters located at Barrio Calaanan. that transaction spawned the succeeding events hereunder chronologically narrated. the subject property was sold to respondent bank as the highest bidder. OLIZON vs. or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. 1978. they executed in favor of respondent bank a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land consisting of 1. On March 12. again due to the failure of petitioner spouses to redeem the foreclosed property within the period of redemption. and there is no better time to do it than now. Petition DENIED. At a public auction thereafter held on March 11. which was lost in the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Kalookan City. C-2746. On January 14. title to the property was consolidated in favor of respondent bank. On June 11. eventuating in this appeal wherein we are now expected to pen the judicial omega. and as a result. Kalookan City and registered in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 24604. Transfer of Page 68 . pursuant to which it was issued a certificate of sale as of the same date.

However. requires only the posting of the notice of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation. In support thereof. Hence. a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession against petitioner spouses. It is now a well-settled rule that personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary. as amended. 1992. 3135 governing extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages. 4118. and/or the nullification of the foreclosure proceedings. and which petition was granted by the trial court on February 8. 1990. under normal situations. 1987 in the name of respondent bank. 10 Section 3 of Act No. the lack of personal notices to the mortgagors. CV No. 3135. 1990. After trial. is not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. as amended.Certificate of Title No. the unusual nature of the attendant facts and the peculiarity of the confluent circumstances involved in this case require that we rule otherwise. the nullification of the certificate of sale dated March 11. 1989. 3135. herein petitioners. by way of opposition. 29482. 1990. We are not unaware of the rulings in some cases that. docketed as LRC Case No. was filed by petitioner spouses wherein they sought the cancellation of the writ of possession. 1974.R. under the factual ambiance nor circumstances which obtained in this case be considered a sufficient ground for annulling the aforementioned sale. a petition. ISSUES: Whether or not the lack of personal notice to the mortgagors. the court a quo issued an order dated July 16. On November 27. Neither can the supposed failure of respondent bank to comply with the posting requirement as provided under the aforesaid Section 3. as amended by Act No. respondent bank this time filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City. the statutory provisions governing publication of notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with and that failure to publish the notice of auction sale as required by the statute constitutes a jurisdictional defect which invalidates the sale. is a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale and the failure of the mortgagee bank to comply with the posting requirement under Section 3 of Act No. be considered a sufficient ground for annulling the sale. Private respondent appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals which rendered its questioned decision in CA—G. in lieu thereof. dated September 9. 4 On March 8. 24604 in the name of the Olizon spouses was cancelled and. they alleged lack of notice of the auction sale and lack of posting of the notice of sale as required by Section 3 of Act No. C3094. Page 69 . Transfer Certificate of Title No. 149858 was issued on June 5. herein petitioners. HELD: No.

at no time after the debt became due and demandable and the mortgage property had been foreclosed. Petitioners' collective acts are. together with a copy of the Notice of Sale. Finally. It would be inequitable to allow petitioners. the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants not only a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either had abandoned it or declined to assert it. sent a printed letter dated February 18. did petitioners offer to pay their mortgage obligation to redeem their property. notice of sale was duly published in accordance with law and furnished the Olizons. 1974 informing the Olizons that appellant bank had filed an application to foreclosure their real estate mortgage and the public auction of the mortgaged parcel of land was sent on March 11. does not indicate that the Olizons did not receive a copy of the aforesaid notice of sale. therefore. to defeat an otherwise indefeasible title by the simple and dubious expedient of invoking a purported irregularity in the foreclosure proceedings. Herein petitioners failed to advance any justification for their prolonged inaction. or even thereafter. and that even slight deviation therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least voidable.The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with. after the lapse of an almost interminable period of time. Furthermore. The document is more than ten (10) years old and the absence of a registry receipt in the case folder of the foreclosure records of the Sheriff of the City of Caloocan. indicative of their acquiescence to and acknowledgment of the validity of the foreclosure proceedings and the sale. and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party. Emma Ona. but also casts doubt on the validity of the claim of ownership. petitioners are already considered estopped through laches from questioning the regularity of the sale as well as the ownership of the land in question. Such neglect to assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time. In the case at bar. the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed judgment of respondent Page 70 . as well as a recognition of respondent bank's just and legal title over the property acquired thereby. more or less great. It is evident from the records that the petition to annul the foreclosure sale was filed by herein petitioners only after 16 long years from the date of sale and only after a transfer certificate of title over the subject property had long been issued to respondent bank. operates as a bar in a court of equity. WHEREFORE. The evidence presented during the trial of the case show that the then Clerk of Court. it being presumed that the sheriff performed her duties and that foreclosure proceedings are regular. In the present case. 1974.

SALES vs. 5861 was canceled and in lieu hereof. 2 On August 19. On October 30. 1956. 1957. or on December 24. to Faustina P. Pangasinan. the CFI of Cavite issued an order declaring the court had lost jurisdiction.00 payable on or about July 4. petitioner Esperanza Sales Bermudez. Tax Declaration No. Covered by Tax Declaration No. 13647 was replaced by two tax declarations: Tax Declaration No. Branch III which upheld the validity of the deed of sale of a parcel of land executed by petitioner Severo Sales in favor of respondent Leonilo Gonzales Severo Sales owned an unregistered parcel of land in Bugallon. Agpoon and Jose Agpoon to secure the payment of a loan in the amount of P2. 1955. 240. 13647 was issued to Sales but the area of the property was stated therein as 5. 1981. Tax Declaration No. petitioners seek to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the then Court of First Instance of Tarlac. On July 4. together with two other parcels of land.________________________________________________________________________ 42. COURT OF APPEALS 211 SCRA 858 FACTS: In this petition for review on certiorari. Sales. Hence. 1958.733 square meters more or less. with the consent of his wife. 13875 in the name of Esperanza Sales Bermudez for the 900-square-meter lot Page 71 . More than a year later. without however dismissing the case.229 square meters more or less. The duly notarized deed of donation was presented to the Assessor's Office on the day of its execution. 5861. Sales mortgaged said property. donated nine hundred (900) square meters of the same property in favor of their daughter. Tax Declaration No. Margarita Ferrer. the property had an area of 5.

the land in question was claimed by respondent Leonilo Gonzales. 1959 before ex-officio Notary Public Arturo Malazo in San Manuel. 000 to Leonilo Gonzales. a document entitled "Deed of Sale" between Severo Sales and Leonilo Gonzales was registered with the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. Page 72 . Said parcel of land was declared by Leonilo Gonzales under Tax Declaration No. 1969. Consequently. Sales had the land covered by Tax Declaration No. Before the case could be tried. According to the Sales spouses. they were not given a copy of said document. 8 Around a month later. To prevent such foreclosure. Branch III a complaint for annulment of the deed of sale between Sales and Gonzales on the ground of fraud. upon submission of the Deed of Sale between Severo Sales and Leonilo Gonzales. 1968. the questioned land was excluded there from. On November 7. Sales received a photostat copy of the deed of sale appearing to have been signed by him and his wife on January 29. 700 to the Agpoon spouses. Leonilo Gonzales filed an action for illegal detainer against Sales before the Municipal Court of Bugallon. the mortgaged property of Sales was set for foreclosure. ISSUE: Whether or not the earlier deed of donation should "prevail" over the deed of sale or be "recognized". 12483. Ernesto Gonzales acceded to the request and asked Sales and his wife to sign a document transferring the mortgage to him. Ernesto Gonzales. As a consequence of a case filed by Faustina P. 5861 in consideration of the amount of P4. Subsequently. Agpoon against Sales in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. In October 1968. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied.donated to her and Tax Declaration No. the Court of First Instance 14 rendered a decision finding that the allegation of fraud was not supported by convincing evidence. Sales requested his friend. son of Ernesto Gonzales. Sales and his daughter. to pay his total indebtedness of P2. The document stated that the Sales spouses had sold the land described under Tax Declaration No. Sales and his daughter elevated the case to the Court of Appeals contending that the lower court erred in upholding the validity of the deed of sale and in not considering the unschooled Sales as an illiterate executor thereof. sometime in January 1959. Esperanza Sales Bermudez filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. the municipal court suspended the illegal detainer proceedings before it pending the outcome of the annulment case. On February 3. 5861 surveyed by a private surveyor. 1959. Tarlac.339 square meters. (SP 42692) in the then Court of First Instance of Manila. 13874 in the name of Sales covering the remaining portion or 4. On October 27. In the Intestate Estate Proceedings of Ernesto Gonzales.

Finally. 1529. Costs against the petitioners. however. did not bind Leonilo Gonzales. Page 73 . the Deed of Sale was registered as evidenced by the notation made by Cipriano Abenojar. In fact." Such agreement had to be expressly stipulated in the deed of donation because under Act 3344. Hence. the court cannot be convinced that it is useless to register deeds or instruments affecting unregistered lands because the books of registration provided under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code as Amended by Act 3344 continue to remain in force even to this day. the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. Pangasinan 35 and the official receipt issued by the Registry of Deeds.HELD: The deed of donation explicitly provides that the land involved "has not been registered neither under Act 496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law. such deed. A perusal of the records shows. that the deed of donation was not registered at all. instruments dealing with unregistered lands can still be registered. however. The parties hereto have agreed to register this document under Act 3344. 1 of Act No. This is because non-registration of a deed of donation under Sec. Register of Deeds of Lingayen. a third party to the donation. at the hearing. notwithstanding the provision therein which petitioners invoke that "any registration made under this section shall be understood to be without prejudice to a third party with a better right" Petitioner Esperanza Sales Bermudez may not be a considered a third party being the daughter of the vendor himself and the "better right" possessed by a third party refers to other titles which a party might have acquired independently of the unregistered deed such as title by prescription. Petitioners' counsel even failed to secure a certification from the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan of its due registration as directed by the trial judge. the Register of Deeds is not authorized to effect any registration unless the parties have expressly agreed to register their transaction thereunder. 3344 does not bind other parties ignorant of a previous transaction. Besides. WHEREFORE. The court take note of the fact that while the Deed of Donation was not registered. while the deed of donation is valid between the donor and the donee thereby effectively transmitting the rights to said property from Sales to his daughter. petitioners failed to show any evidence proving registration.

Page 74 . 1988. damage and prejudice to the government in the amount of P777. in Metro Manila. After his arraignment. Arturo Pacificador. 3019. wilfully.005. and therefore. and his erstwhile co-accused. March 13. then Chairman of the Board of the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation. the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information in Criminal Case No. Philippines. PEOPLE vs.50. Jose T. effect and cause the sale. herein respondent.150.________________________________________________________________________ 43. and with evident bad faith promote.. thereby giving the Philippine Smelters Corporation unwarranted benefits. rights and interests over parcels of land in Jose Panganiban. advantages and profits and causing undue injury. December 6. 1998. then President of the Philippine Smelters Corporation. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. a private corporation. conspiring and confederating with one another and with other individuals.50 while the fair market value thereof at that time was P862. did then and there.00. facilitate. Marcelo. 2001 FACTS: On October 27. and Jose T. Jr. 1998 the petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 13044 on July 15. the terms and conditions of which are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Government as the consideration thereof is only P85. Arturo Pacificador y Fullon. PACIFICADOR 354 SCRA 310.144. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 1976. a government-owned corporation. Marcelo. said accused. a public officer. On August 21. unlawfully and knowingly. 1975 to January 6. as amended. transfer and conveyance by the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation of its ownership and all its titles. Camarines Norte where the Jose Panganiban Smelting Plant is located including all the reclaimed and foreshore areas of about 50 hectares to the Philippine Smelters Corporation by virtue of a contract. were charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of violation of Republic Act No.

1983. they categorically ruled that: Page 75 . The offense charged was allegedly committed from December 16. 3326. dated October 19. as amended. 1975 to January 6. the Sandiganbayan reconsidered its Resolution of November 10. HELD: No. 1976. 1976. it follows that in computing the prescriptive period of the offense. 1988.On November 10. Sandiganbayan. 1999. 122 SCRA 538) to the effect that the filing of the complaint with the fiscals office also interrupts the period of prescription of the offense. respondent Pacificador moved for the reconsideration of the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to Dismiss On February 3. it is not the provision contained in the Revised Penal Code that should govern but that of Act No. was filed with the Sandiganbayan on October 27. ISSUES: Whether or not the government officials involved in the transaction connived and conspired with respondent and the Information in Criminal Case No. The offense imputed on accused was allegedly committed from December 6. [11] this Court ruled that Section 2 of Act No. Desierto . 3019. The Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner was denied by the Sandiganbayan on July 23.A. or ten years from January 6. 3326 governs the computation of prescription of offenses defined and penalized by special laws. Court of Appeals (May 30. 1998. On December 7. In the case of People v. 139405 against the respondent on the ground of prescription is dismissible. In the fairly recent case of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. 1976. The second ground submitted by the accused-movant is precipitate at this stage of the proceedings. The information in this case. 1999. a special law. 3019. 139405 against the respondent on the ground of prescription. 1986. 3326 was correctly applied by the anti-graft court in determining the reckoning period for prescription in a case involving the crime of violation of Republic Act No. as the offense involved is the violation of R. the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the Motion to Dismiss the Information. 1975 to January 6. 1988 on which date the existing jurisprudence on matters of prescription of the offense was the ruling enunciated in Francisco v. 1998 and dismissed the Information in Criminal Case No. as it involves a matter of defense. 1998. The offense prescribed on January 3. It has been settled that Section 2 of Act No. In this case.

the Court does not find it necessary to discuss the other points raised by the respondent in his Comment as additional grounds for the denial of the instant petition. paragraphs (e) and (g) of Section 3.Since the law alleged to have been violated. 13060 was subsequently issued to the vendee. There is also no allegation that the government officials involved in the transactions connived or conspired with respondent Pacificador. the applicable rule in the computation of the prescriptive period is Section 2 of Act No. Page 76 . The records of this case do not specifically show how the respondent allegedly employed acts that could prevent the discovery of any illegality in the transaction other than the bare assertion of the petitioner. In view of the foregoing. the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. 3019. Prescription should begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law. as held in a number of cases that in the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes. No. The said government officials were not even charged in the instant Information.. This simply means that if the commission of the crime is known. 3326.A. which provides: Sec. that which is more favorable to the accused is to be adopted. It bears emphasis. as amended. Philippine Smelters Corporation. the petitioner contends that respondent concealed his criminal acts that effectively prevented discovery thereof. WHEREFORE. R. the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day it was committed. 2. it was never disputed by the petitioner that the subject Deed of Sale was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Camarines Norte and that the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title No. as amended. i. is a special law. from the discovery thereof and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment The prescription shall be interrupted when the proceedings are instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy. On the other hand. and if the same be not known at the time. [16] The said legal principle takes into account the nature of the law on prescription of crimes which is an act of amnesty and liberality on the part of the state in favor of the offender In the case at bar.e.

San Fernando. Without the knowledge of the petitioners. Cunanan sold the three (3) parcels of land to Cool Town Realty and Development Corporation. and Catalina Chu were the registered owners of five (5) parcels of land situated in Barrio Saguin. sold these two (2) properties to the respondent Benelda Estate Development Corporation. They executed a deed of sale on Sept. March 1. Benelda Estate Development Corporation 353 SCRA 424. 2001 FACTS: The petitioners’ spouses Manuel Chu. was that the ownership of the properties shall remain with the petitioners until full payment of the balance of the total purchase price. Cunanan failed to pay the balance of the total purchase price to the petitioners. Cunanan. Sr.[ [ 44. The spouses Carlos. 30. Cunanan. and the two (2) other parcels of land to the spouses Amado and Gloria Carlos. Petitioners commenced civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga against Trinidad N. It was made to appear in the deed of sale that the total consideration had been fully paid to enable Cunanan to have the parcels of land registered in her name so that she could mortgage the same to secure a loan and thereupon pay from the proceeds of the loan. Cool Town Realty and Development . Their agreement. CHU Sr. however. in turn. vs. Pampanga. 1986 with assumption of mortgage in favor of Trinidad N.

and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him. admitting the facts alleged the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. The respondent filed its answer with a motion to dismiss on the ground that the amended complaint states no cause of action against respondent. shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument. at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. In land title cases. a title procured through fraud and misrepresentation can still . Carlos (sellers of the subject titled parcels of land to respondent) are real and indispensable parties in the case at bar. HELD: A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. the court held that a person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. The respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A person is considered in law as an innocent purchaser for value who is defined as one who buys the property of another. It alleged that respondent corporation. The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of action is whether or not. whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration. through its officers. ISSUES: a) Whether the spouses Amado E. Section 53 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Carlos and Gloria A. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court and dismissed the case as against the respondent on the ground of lack of cause of action and for failure of the petitioners to include the spouses Carlos as indispensable parties in the complaint. The petitioners amended their complaint to include respondent Benelda Estate Development Corporation as a defendant. b) Whether or not the respondent corporation is an innocent purchaser for value. otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays a full price for the same. provides that: The production of the owners duplicate certificate. Thus. in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.Corporation and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. trial After the petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. In this connection. the court rendered a decision denying the motion to dismiss. acted in good faith in buying the properties inasmuch as it exerted all efforts to verify the authenticity of the titles and that no defect was found.

There is no allegation to the contrary in the amended complaint. Cunanan despite alleged non-payment of the full purchase price for their subject two (2) parcels of land. being that of an innocent purchaser for value. is fatal for the reason that the court cannot render a valid judgment against the purchaser who is presumed to be in good faith in acquiring the said property. absent an allegation of bad faith on its part. The petition is DENIED for lack of cause of action. much less impute. Therefore. the petitioners took the risk of losing their titles on the said properties inasmuch as the subject deed of sale with assumption of mortgage constitutes their consent and announcement to the whole world that Cunanan was indeed the legal owner of the properties by virtue of the said deed which is a public document. despite the obvious insufficiency of the amended complaint against the corporation respondent. bad faith on said purchaser who has acquired a title in his favor would make it impossible for the court to render a valid judgment thereon due to the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his title. To implead the respondent in the case at bar. The appellate court therefore was correct in entertaining the petition for the reason that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it refused to dismiss the case against the respondent. .be the source of a completely legal and valid title if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. remains valid. What is important is that when respondent bought the subject properties. the complaint must allege that the purchaser was aware of the defect in the title so that the cause of action against him will be sufficient. Failure to do so. In a case for annulment of title. Failure to prove. it was not aware of any defect in the covering certificates of title thereto at the time of such purchase. is to undermine a well-settled rule protecting innocent purchasers for value and the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of certificates of title issued under the Torrens System. By allowing the cancellation of their certificates of title and the issuance of new ones in lieu thereof in the name of Trinidad N. the title of respondent. as in the case at bar. therefore.

that Solid Homes would pay P1. payable in installments from July 22. Branch 26 an action for specific performance and damages against Solid Homes. 942. Inc. Investco.’s favor. and co-plaintiffs sought to collect from Solid Homes. and the amount of P4.042. Pasig. Inc. 1977 to January 22.91 representing the balance on the purchase price due under the contract. filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal. and actual and moral damages. AFP Mutual Benefit Association Inc. Among other terms. In the complaint. Jr. Inc. including attorney’s fees.860.00 for science and transfer taxes. Investco. vs.00 as additional down payment on July 22. However. The first installment was due on July 22. 1976. . intended for the remaining installments were dishonored. leaving a balance of P4. after February 19.430.075.000. 1978. now a City). 211. On September 7.084.282. and January 22. agreed to sell the six (6) parcels of land to Solid Homes for P10. the parties agreed that Solid Homes would pay the amount of P100.215. 000.282. 1983. October 22. Angela Perez-Staley and Antonio Perez. March 3. 1976. and its predecessors-in-interests Angela Perez-Staley and Antonio Perez. Investco. Inc. 1981. The post dated checks issued by Solid homes to Investco.00. 2000 FACTS: Prior to September 7.00 as down payment upon execution of the contract.00 representing the first four (4) semi-annual installments and a portion of the fifth installment. 1977. Investco. Inc. Inc.00 representing Investco. registered under titles in the names of its predecessors-in-interests. 800. 1981.559. located in Quezon City and Marikina (Metro Manila.45.00 in ten (10) semi-annual installments for a period of five (5) years.215.’s contribution to the expenses for eviction of squatters and the further sum of P99. Solid Homes made no further payment to Investco. Jr. 188. and that Solid Homes would pay the balance of P8. after paying the amount of P2. Inc.91 due under the contract in Investco. Inc. Inc. was the owner of six (6) parcels of raw land. Inc. reimbursement of P350. CA 327 SCRA -203. On March 13. 1977. with interest at twelve (12%) percent per annum.00 corresponding to the down payment. the sum of P4. 1978. 300.

and interposed a counterclaim for the refund of its excess payments. 1984. the notice of lis pendens was recorded as Entry No.’s complaint.’s complaint alleging that the purchase price under the contract was "not yet due" and that the former.000. for the price of P24. Inc. 117191 of the primary Entry Book.000. in fact. On May 27. Solid Homes filed with the trial court an answer to Investco. Metro Manila and found that copies of the titles that Investco." During the inspection.800. for P27.000. Inc.’s name. On the same date. 40615 requesting that the same be annotated on the titles in Investco. Inc. property was underdeveloped raw land "which is mostly cogonal."AFP MBAI confirmed the presence of squatter shanties numbering about twenty (20) to thirty (30). After determining that the Investco property was suitable for the housing project of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and that the titles covering the same were "clean" and "genuine. Inc. there was no development on the property. Inc. on April 23. Inc. moral damages in the sum of P500.00 representing science and transfer taxes advanced by Investco to Solid Homes and P250.000. 1985. and attorney’s fees of P20. Inc. In the meantime. AFP MBAI noted that there were no liens or encumbrances annotated on the titles. Except for a foot path used by the squatters. .079. payable in installments. (with) few trees and shrubs and bounded on one side by the Marikina River. Investco. 1984 "to determine the nature of the property and its (metes) and bounds. exceeded the installment payments due thereon. furnished AFP MBAI with certified true copies of the titles covering the Marikina property.559. 1984.00. payable in installments for a period of one (1) year. AFP MBAI found that the Investco.767. 1981 until paid." On September 20. 1984. the trial court ordered the original record transmitted to the appellate court in view of Solid Homes’ filing of a notice of appeal. representing the balance of the purchase price due under the contract. made an ocular inspection of the property sometime in June and July. offered to sell the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association.91.000. with interest thereon from February 23. Inc. Inc. Investco. gave were genuine and faithful reproductions of the original titles on file with the Register of Deeds.00. 1981. through its Real Estate Committee. Volume 14 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Marikina. Moreover.On April 20.000. However. AFP MBAI.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. 1985. Metro Manila.282. On February 14. Inc. In June.00.00. ordering solid Homes to pay plaintiffs P4. subsequently reduced to P24. AFP MBAI verified the titles with the Register of Deeds of Marikina." AFP MBAI agreed to purchase the same from Investco.000. Solid Homes filed with the Register of Deeds of Marikina a notice of lis pendens with reference to Civil Case No.00 "or in the sum equivalent to 10% of whatever amount is awarded in favor of defendant. P99. the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Investco. Solid Homes prayed for dismissal of Investco. Inc. the notice of lis pendens was not actually annotated on the titles in the name of Investco.

00. (b) alternatively.000.000. the Land Registration Commission. 1985. Marikina. 1985. Inc. Inc. be ordered to pay Solid Homes jointly and severally. . for "annotation of lis pendens and damages" with temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. AFP MBAI also obtained a certification from the Clerk of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina that Investco. the notice of lis pendens dated September 19. the Register of Deeds of Marikina issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. and (c) AFP MBAI and Investco. adverse claims or any liens or encumbrance (on) the originals of the title(s) x x x. 1984 in relation to civil Case No. the trial court rendered decision. Inc. 1990. 40615. or the property pending with said court and offices. AFP MBAI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.000. executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale" conveying the property to AFP MBAI for the price of P24. AFP MBAI completed its payments of the purchase price. 1992. N-104944. N-104943. N-104942. Inc. filed with the trial court an answer to the complaint. In its verified complaint. Inc. "has no pending case before (that) court." Solid Homes also prayed for an order to enjoin provisionally the Register of Deeds from registering any deed affecting the titles in derogation of solid Homes’ rights under the contract executed between itself and Investco. On April 26." AFP MBAI also inquired from the Malacañang Legal Office. encumbrance." In November. AFP MBAI and Investco. payable in installments until October 10. 40615. Among other terms. N104945 and N-104946 in the name of AFP MBAI. the Court of Appeals rendered decision. Investco. as well as attorney’ fees of P100. Investco. and to carry over the same to the titles in the name of AFP MBAI. On November 28. After pre-trial and trial. November 29. Metro Manila and confirmed "(t)he absence of any lis pendens. 1984. to declare AFP MBAI as a buyer in bad faith. N-104941.00 plus "ten (10%) percent of the total amount to be awarded to plaintiff. unspecified amount of actual. bound by the judgment to be rendered in Civil Case No. Inc. 1985. 1985. but found no case involving either Investco. The titles issued were "clean" and contained no annotation of any lien. and the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina if there were cases and other problems concerning the property. In due time. AFP MBAI and Investco. or adverse claim by a third party. warranted to AFP MBAI that "it has good and valid title over the properties subject of (the) sale and (that it ) shall hold (AFP MBAI) free from any adverse claim of whatever nature and from liens an encumbrances of third parties.On October 10." In April. Inc. on April 25. 1984. Solid Homes prayed that (a) the Register of Deeds be ordered to annotate on the titles registered in the name of Investco. Inc. Inc. against the Register of Deeds. Aggrieved thereby. moral and exemplary damages. Solid Homes commenced action before the Regional Trial Court. AFP MBAI again verified the records of the Register of Deeds of Marikina.

which denial may be appealed by the applicant en consulta (Section 10. paragraph 2) to the Commissioner of Land Registration. Inc. HELD: No. The Register of Deeds of Marikina correctly denied the annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the titles of Investco. On March 17. Obviously. Pasig and thereby be bound by the final judgment therein. the action is actually one for mandamus to compel the performance of a clear legal duty. Inc. Solid Homes’ complaint was one for "annotation of lis pendens and other matters with prayer for restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction" against Investco.On December 24. Actually. and in issuing titles in the name of defendant AFP Mutual Benefit Association." Consequently. Inc. It is but a signal to the intending buyer or mortgagee to take care or beware and to investigate the prospect or non-prospect of the litigation succeeding before he forks down his money. "Lis pendens is a Latin term which literally means a pending suit or a pending litigation while a notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation. Inc. the Register of Deed’s obligation to annotate the notice of lis pendens is one that arises from law. ISSUES: Whether or not Solid Homes is entitled to the annotation of its notice of lis pendens on the titles of Investco. The rule that "all persons dealing with property covered by Torrens Certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title" . 40615 of the Regional Trial Court. 1991. AFP MBAI filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision. There is no such action as one for "annotation of lis pendens. to cause the annotation of lis pendens in the titles of Investco. 1529. Solid Homes alleged that "the act of defendant Register of Deeds in not causing the annotation of the lis pendens on the titles then registered in the name of defendant Investco. Basically. which Solid Homes opposed." as Solid Homes sought in its complaint. therefore. Hence. the suit is to compel the Register of Deeds of Marikina to annotate the notice of lis pendens on the titles of AFP MBAI with a claim for damages against Investco. or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property. without carrying over the proper annotation of lis pendens are contrary to law". and AFP Mutual Benefit Association. in relation to Civil Case No. the doctrine of lis pendens is inapplicable to this case. serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over the said property does so at his own risk. 1991. known as the "Property Registration Decree of 1978". Inc. AFP MBAI and the Register of Deeds of Marikina. Under Presidential Decree No. and AFP MBAI. Inc. the Register of Deeds may deny registration of the notice of lis pendens.. and the AFP MBAI. and AFP MBAI for depriving Solid Homes of its rights to the property as provided under the contract to buy and sell. the Court of Appeals denied the motion.. Inc. In its verified complaint. Inc.

applies herein with full vigor. In the absence of anything to excite suspicion, the buyer is not obligated to look beyond the certificate to investigate the titles of the seller appearing on the face of the certificate. "Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof." Here, Solid Homes alleged that Investco, Inc. and AFP MBAI "confederated with each other in entering into the aforementioned sale in order to deprive herein plaintiff (Solid Homes) of its rights over subject properties under the Contract to Sell and to Buy..." However, Solid Homes adduced no evidence to prove such allegation of bad faith. The conclusion is inevitable that contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, AFP MBAI was a purchaser in good faith and for value, and, consequently, acquired valid and indefeasible titles to the Investco, Inc. property. Resultantly, we find the appeal via certiorari of solid Homes without merit. Its objective was to compel AFP MBAI to execute a deed of transfer of the titles to parcels of land originally covered by the agreement to buy and sell between Solid Homes, Inc. and Investco, Inc. and for Solid Homes to pay AFP MBAI, in substitution of Investco, Inc. the amount of P4,800,282.91 with interest thereon at one per cent per month from March 22, 1982, until paid. Thus, if Solid Homes would succeed in its scheme in the case, it would unjustly enrich itself enormously, acquiring subject property now worth billions for the measly sum of P4,800,282.91 with interest at one per cent a month from March 22, 1982, which it was unable to pay Investco, Inc. in the first place. Solid Homes’ claim is predicated on the assumption that AFP MBAI is a transferee pendente lite of Investco, Inc. of the subject parcels of land and bound by the result of the suit. Such claim is not factually or legally correct. In the absence of a valid notice of lis pendens annotated in the titles, AFP MBAI is a buyer in good faith and for value, and thus, acquired clean and valid titles to the property in question. WHEREFORE, the Court: (1) In G. R. No. 104769, GRANTS the petition, and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 27398 and, in lieu thereof, renders judgment: (a) Dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 52999 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig Branch 165; (b) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Marikina to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. N-104941, N-104942, N-104943, N-104944, N-104945 and N-104946 of the Register of Deeds for Marikina, Metro Manila; (c) Ordering respondent Solid Homes, Inc. to pay AFPMBAI P300,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and costs. (2) In G.R. No. 135016, DENIES the petition, for lack of merit.

46. Sps. JAYME and EVELYN UY vs. Court of Appeals and Sps. NICANOR and ESTER DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 109197, June 21, 2001 Facts: The spouses DE GUZMAN were the registered owners of certain parcels of land, evidenced by certificates of title. The spouses erected a residential house therein worth around Php10Million, while the value of the lots was around Php4k to Php5k per square meter. Later, due to financial constraints,

the said spouses obtained a loan from Mario Siochi, secured by a mortgage over the said properties. However, the spouses were required to sign a document dubbed as “Deed of Sale”. Later, unknown to the said spouses, Mario Siochi was able to transfer the registration of the said parcels of land in his name, using the “Deed of Sale”. Accordingly, new transfer certificates of title over the said lots were issued in the name of Mario Siochi. In turn, Mario Siochi sold the said lots to the spouses UY, both engaged in buy-and-sell of real estates, in the measly amount of Php2.7Million. For this, the spouses UY were able to obtain new transfer certificates of title over the said parcels of land in their name. In turn, the spouses UY leased the said properties to Roberto Salapandan. However, since the spouses DE GUZMAN remained in possession of the said properties, Roberto Salapandan was not able to occupy it. Roberto Salapandan then filed an ejectment case against the spouses DE GUZMAN. It was at this juncture when the spouses DE GUZMAN learned, for the first time, that the said parcels of land are already registered in the name of the Sps. UY. The spouses DE GUZMAN filed a case for quieting of title against the spouses UY, Mario Siochi and Roberto Salapandan. On the part of the spouses UY, they argued that they are innocent purchasers for value, thus, the properties should remain registered in their name. Issue: Whether or not the spouses UY are innocent purchasers for value. Held: The spouses UY are NOT innocent purchasers for value. Firstly, it was proved that the transaction between Mario Siochi and the spouses DE GUZMAN was an equitable mortgage, and not sale. Thus, Mario Siochi cannot sell the subject properties to the spouses UY. The fact that the spouses UY merely relied in the certificates of title over the subject lots registered in the name of Mario Siochi is not material. For while it is true that a person dealing with registered lands need not go beyond the certificate of title, it is likewise a well-settled rule that a purchaser or mortgagee cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor or mortgagor. His mere refusal to face up to the fact that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in the vendor’s or mortgagor’s title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with the measure of precaution which may be required of a prudent man in a like situation. In this case, IF the spouses UY only conducted the required diligence, they should have discovered the defect in the title of Mario Siochi over the subject parcels of land. The fact that the properties remained in the possession of the spouses DE GUZMAN and the cheap purchase price (Php2.7Million) they have paid to Mario Siochi should have incited their awareness to conduct further inquiry, especially so that they are businessmen dealing with real estates for which a higher degree of diligence is required of them by law.

thus. however. an Order of Default was issued for failure of GOOD EARTH to answer the complaint. Later.47. Thereafter. the latter’s certificate of title was cancelled. However. The sheriff. the summons for GOOD EARTH to appear and answer the complaint was returned ‘UNSERVED’ by the sheriff alleging that the address of such corporation is ‘UNKNOWN’. in accordance with the rules of court. for which. did not attempt to serve the summons to the corporation through its officers. is the registered owner of a certain parcel of land as evidenced by a certificate of title. Court of Appeals and GOOD EARTH ENTERPRISES. After presentation of complainant’s evidence. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR filed an action for recovery of ownership of the said lot against GOOD EARTH. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR was able to obtain a new . a Judgment of Default was issued in favor of ARTEMIO BALTAZAR and against GOOD EARTH. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR and AURORA GALVEZ vs. the summons was published. substituted service was resorted to.. Such decision has become final and executory. December 8. Forthwith. INC. INC. 1988 Facts: GOOD EARTH ENTERPRISES. Accordingly. 78728.

GOOD EARTH is NOT residing abroad. that AURORA GALVEZ had successfully proven that she was a purchaser in good faith and for value. the lawful registered owner of the subject parcel of land. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR subdivided the lot. Firstly. . Thus.. Assuming. it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith. yet. When GOOD EARTH discovered the cancellation of its certificate of title.e. Her recourse is against ARTEMIO BALTAZAR. In discharging that burden. and which had not been negligent in any manner and indeed had not performed any act which gave rise to or any occasion for any claim of right by third persons. such portion sold to her should remain in her ownership. Neither did the publication cure the defect. the court where the complaint of ARTEMIO BALTAZAR was filed DID NOT acquire jurisdiction over the person of the corporation for improper service of summons. Under the foregoing principle derived from the above case law. at all relevant times. Resolution: AURORA GALVEZ is NOT an innocent purchaser for value. AURORA GALVEZ argued that she is an innocent purchaser for value. The sheriff DID NOT conduct the proper service thereof as required by the rules (i. As regards the claim of AURORA GALVEZ. cashier. as between two persons. and sold a portion thereof to AURORA GALVEZ. and 3) service upon residents temporarily out of the country. AURORA GALVEZ was able to obtain a certificate of title to such portion of the lot sold to her by ARTEMIO BALTAZAR. i. thus. Accordingly.certificate of title over the said parcel of land. Even so. summons by publication should have NOT been resorted to. The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that status. Thereafter. Also. GOOD EARTH’s address is NOT UNKNOWN (The address of GOOD EARTH is correct. that everyone is presumed to act in good faith. both of whom are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence. secretary. GOOD EARTH is NOT temporarily out of the country. it filed a case for annulment of judgment against ARTEMIO BALTAZAR and AURORA GALVEZ. for the sake of argument. AURORA GALVEZ has no rights as against GOOD EARTH. 2) service upon defendants who are residing abroad. the law must protect and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights.e. the sheriff DID NOT inquire at the given address whether GOOD EARTH has office therein). Issue: Whether or not AURORA GALVEZ is an innocent purchaser for value. she has NOT proved her status as a purchaser in good faith and for value of the land. service upon the President. whatever rights AURORA GALVEZ might have had cannot be superior to the rights of GOOD EARTH which was. etc…). since summons by publication is done only in cases where: 1) the defendant or his address is UNKNOWN. The good faith that is here essential is integral with the very status which must be proved.

al. et. Cesaria Caballero. 136021. DE SELMA. . DE SELMA derives her title. 5679 was adjudicated to the widow. 5679 with an area of 12. registered owner of the mother lot. VDA.750 square meters of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate. Upon Silvestre Aro’s demise. 4752. having bought the same sometime in February 1975 from Cesaria Caballero as evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale and have been in possession of the same since then. February 22. Issue: Whether or not GERARDA M. DE SELMA is the registered owner of Lot 5679-C-120 consisting of 9. his heirs executed an "Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Absolute Sale" wherein one-half plus onefifth of Lot No. VDA. DE SELMA is a purchaser in good faith and for value. BENIGNA SECUYA.302 square meters as evidenced by TCT No. T-35678. VDA. from whom GERARDA M. 2000 Facts: GERARDA M. VDA. GERARDA M. as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. No.48. vs. Cesaria Caballero was the widow of Silvestre Aro. Lot.

however. and the non-registration of the deed evidencing said transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of their obligations thereunder. et. Court of Appeals. assured GERARDA that BENIGNA SECUYA. Cesaria Caballero. it must be stressed that the vendor. 2000 Facts: The Heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on are the registered owners of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. Resolution: The Deed is valid notwithstanding lack of registration thereof. al. Indeed. AZNAR BROTHERS vs. et. As between the parties to a sale. including the disputed portion. were actually occupying the disputed lot. while BENIGNA SECUYA. the original copy of this certificate of title is NOT in the possession of the Registry of Deeds as it was allegedly lost during the world war. It must be borne in mind that the act of registering a document is never necessary to give the conveyance legal effect as between the parties and the vendor’s heirs. had been the subject of several sales transactions. this Deed has not been annotated on OCT RO-2856. Later. et. Issue: Whether or not the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition is valid as to transfer ownership of the subject property to the AZNAR BROTHERS notwithstanding non-registration thereof in OCT RO-2856. who may be ignorant thereof. through Superales and his family. the lot. al's claim was not noted in the certificate of the title covering Lot No. However.Resolution: GERARDA M. VDA. without any protestation or complaint from BENIGNA SECUYA. et. said certificate of title was reconstituted on August 25. al. However. 49. GERARDA's title is amply supported by clear evidence. The purpose of registration is merely to notify and protect the interests of strangers to a given transaction. AZNAR BROTHERS acquired ownership of Lot No. in this case. al. al’s claim is barren of proof. In any case. Later. GERARDA cannot be faulted for believing this representation. 1988. granting arguendo that GERARDA knew that BENIGNA SECUYA. registration is not indispensable to make it valid and effective. However. 1964. The title thereto had been transferred several times. 5679. DE SELMA is a purchaser in good faith and for value. Here. 4399 and covered by OCT RO-2856. 128102. et. The peculiar force of a title is exhibited only when the purchaser has sold to innocent third parties the land described in the conveyance. because this certificate of title is NOT in the possession of the Register of Deeds. were just tenants on the said lot. a party who has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would move a reasonably cautious man to make an inquiry will not be protected by the Torrens system. obviously. no right of innocent third persons or subsequent . March 7. Moreover. considering that BENIGNA SECUYA.. 4399 by virtue of the Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the Heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on on March 3.

Resolution: ALEXANDER acquired the entirety of the subject lot. Unable to pay her outstanding obligation after the debt became due and payable. thus." This principle has no bearing on the present case. thus. her heirs assail the validity of the transfer of title from GERTRUDES to ALEXANDER. 130584 was issued. 125233. ELEUTERIO LEIS. GERTRUDES cannot transfer the entirety of the lot to ALEXANDER. and is equally binding and effective against their heirs." who was referred therein as a "widow. Issue: Whether or not ALEXANDER acquired the entirety of the subject lot. is sold by a widow to a purchaser who merely relied on the face of the certificate of title thereto. the conveyance executed in favor of AZNAR by private respondents and their predecessors is valid and binding upon them. 43100 is a conjugal property." Where a parcel of land. The principle that registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land "refers to cases involving conflicting rights over registered property and those of innocent transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties. 43100 was issued in the name of "Gertrudes Isidro. when GERTRUDES died. 50. the same amount stipulated in the "Kasunduan. The first is denominated as "Kasunduan." which the parties concede is a pacto de retro sale.transferees of the subject lot is involved. claiming that the subject property covered by the then TCT No. et. GERTRUDES executed two contracts in favor of ALEXANDER CRUZ. GERTRUDES. ownership thereof was consolidated in the name of ALEXANDER CRUZ in whose name TCT No. widow. issued solely in the name of the widow." For failure of GERTRUDES to repurchase the property.. Later. 43100 in the name of GERTRUDES ISIDRO. the purchaser acquires a valid title to the land even as against the heirs of the .083. canceling TCT No. as no subsequent transfer of the subject lot to other persons has been made either by private respondents or their predecessors-ininterest. The second is a "Kasunduan ng Tuwirang Bilihan. 2000 Facts: GERTRUDES acquired a parcel of land for which TCT No. granting Gertrudes one year within which to repurchase the property. secured by a mortgage over the property covered by TCT No. March 9.00. failed to pay the loan. however. GERTRUDES obtained a loan from spouses ALEXANDER and ADELAIDA CRUZ. Spouses ALEXANDER AND ADELAIDA CRUZ vs. 43100. It must be noted that the property was registered as TCT No. 43100 solely in the name of "Gertrudes Isidro." a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the same property for the price of P39. forming part of the undistributed properties of the dissolved conjugal partnership of gains. al." Later.

Agusan Del Sur. wherein he did NOT divulge in the application that the subject property is a ‘reserved’ land. 2001 Facts: A parcel of land was reserved by the then Bureau of Lands as a School Site for the San Francisco Townsite Reservation in Agusan Del Sur.deceased spouse. fraud and deceit. Neither can CEFERINO successfully invoke the doctrine of estoppel against the government. assails the validity of title of CEFERINO PAREDES over the subject property. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CEFERINO PAREDES. . the Sangguniang Bayan of San Francisco. Intriguingly. March 9. upon the registration of the patent. CEFERINO PAREDES. The deliberately false application and suppression of the known fact that the subject land was reserved for a school site misled the Bureau of Lands to waive opposition to CEFERINO’s application and effectively deprived the Republic of its day in court. is guilty of misrepresentation. a certificate of title (OCT. Resolution: CEFERINO PAREDES has NO valid title over the subject property. hornbook law that the principle of estoppel does not operate against the Government for the act of its agents.P-8379) was issued in favor of CEFERINO PAREDES. To require him to do more is to defeat one of the primary objects of the Torrens system. in not divulging that the subject land is a ‘reserved’ land. 51. Notwithstanding the reservation. The rationale for this rule is that "a person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property. Accordingly. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CEFERINO PAREDES was able to obtain a free patent thereto from the DENR. despite knowledge of such. the government is not now estopped from questioning the validity of his certificate of title. Later. Issue: Whether or not CEFERINO PAREDES has a valid title over the subject parcel of land. He is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title. after all. 112115. CEFERINO PAREDES applied for free patent over the said parcel of land. It is. While it is true that CEFERINO obtained title to the subject land without government opposition.

part of Bago Bantay resettlement project. portions of Project 7. Philippine Science High School. Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife. versus THE COURT OF APPEALS. part of Phil-Am Life Homes compound and four-fifths of North Triangle. this petition failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting of notices provided under Republic Act No. the entire Project 6 and Vasha Village. 89366-67. Bureau of Telecommunications. HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA. non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirements renders its decision approving the reconstitution and all proceedings therein utterly null and void. Quezon Memorial Circle. al. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. portions of UP Village and East Triangle. Agricultural Training Institute building.322 square meters. et. JANUARY 31. On this. Pagasa Village. Quezon City Hospital. Resolution: The failure to comply with the requirements of publication and posting of notices prescribed in Republic Act No. Issue: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition. Notwithstanding this failure. 2000 Facts: This case involves a prime lot consisting of 4. 26. Philcoa Building. . Philippine Tobacco Administration. Land Registration Authority.52. Sugar Regulatory Administration. SM City North EDSA. San Francisco School. the trial court granted the petition. Sections 12 and 13 is fatal to the jurisdiction of the court. Veterans Memorial Hospital and golf course. situated in Quezon City. However. Sections 12 and 13. Department of Agriculture.399. Hence. Visayas Avenue. This large estate was the subject of a petition for judicial reconstitution originally filed by Eulalio Ragua in 1964. Mindanao Avenue subdivision. known as the Diliman Estate. 439 hectares of prime land now stand the following: the Quezon City Hall. 26.

then the reconstituted title is void and the court that rendered the Decision had no jurisdiction. it arises from the loss or destruction of the owner’s copy of the certificate. reconstitution of title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Issue: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition. the title to Lot 1 was not lost or destroyed. However. THE CITY OF LEGASPI. Thus. Resolution: It appears that the trial court had NO jurisdiction. The trial court granted the petition and ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the Original Certificates of Title over these lots. More than 20 years have lapse from the time the trial court rendered the decision in the reconstitution case without any protest from STILIANOPULOS. 665 (for Lot 1). and the existence of the certificate of title over Lot 1 registered in favor of STILIANOPULOS. 133913. 1999 Facts: The City of Legaspi filed a Petition for the judicial reconstitution of its titles to twenty parcels of land. the sending of notice to the occupant of the land covered by the title sought to be reconstituted is mandatory and jurisdictional. the order of reconstitution is null and void.53. under Section 13 of RA 26. the certificates of which had allegedly been lost or destroyed during World War II. In the case at bar. If a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another person. October 12. laches has set in against STILIANOPULOS. It remained in the possession of the petitioner’s father and was eventually passed on to him. JOSE MANUEL STILIANOPULOS VS. If no notice of the date of hearing of a reconstitution case is served on the possessor or anyone else having interest in the property involved. First. in favor of the applicant. Second. notwithstanding failure to comply with publication and notice requirements. including OCT No. . including Lot 1 (Psd 3261).

(4) the location of the property. No. 240131 and 213611 registered in the name of EVANGELINE PUZON. March 06. 3(c). (3) the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title. and (5) the date on which all persons having an interest in the property. LUCIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT. but by Section 10 of RA 26. 3(e) and 3(f). Section 13 adds another requirement: that the notice be mailed to occupants. JOSELITO VILLEGAS AND DOMINGA VILLEGAS VS. among others. 3(d). that requirement is found in Section 13. PUZON VS.. 2001 . The sources of the reconstitution were the owner’s duplicate certificates of title. Verily. 139518. and (2) such notice be posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal hall where the property is located. the Petition is governed. (2) the name of the registered owner. 2(d). EVANGELIN filed a Petition for the judicial reconstitution of the two destroyed titles. 3(a). and all other persons who may have an interest in the property. Nothing in this provision requires that notices be sent to owners of adjoining lots. Without sending notices to the adjoining owners of the subject properties. G. must appear and file such claims as they may have. mailing the notice is not required for a petition based on Sections 2(a). owners of adjoining lots. 55.R. 2(e). EVANGELINE L. INC. COURT OF APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION. 2001 Facts: AND A fire in the office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City destroyed. (1) a notice be published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette at the expense of the petitioner. the trial court granted the petition and ordered the Register of Deeds to issue the reconstituted certificates of title. 3(b) and 4(a). 2(b). Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 require that 30 days before the date of hearing. as in the present case. STA. the original copies of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. For petitions based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(c). Accordingly. not by Sections 12 and 13.R. G. which does not apply to petitions based on an existing owner's duplicate TCT. February 01.54. Put differently. Issue: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Resolution: The source of the Petition for the reconstitution of title was EVANGELINE's duplicate copies of the two TCTs mentioned in Section 3(a). The notice shall state the following: (1) the number of the certificate of title. 2(f). Clearly. To repeat. 129977. No.

the proceedings are utterly void. The proceedings therein being in rem. FORTUNE TOBACCO filed a petition for judicial reconstitution. Resolution: Although the order of reconstitution reveals that there was publication of the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette as required by law. T-68737). Issue: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition. Fortune cannot now invoke the prior title rule. no mention of compliance with the requirement of posting of the notice of the petition in the provincial or municipal building of the city or municipality where the subject property is located. the Office of the Register of Deeds was burned together with all the certificates of title therein. 26. however. as it in effect has no valid title to speak of. which is why the petitioner is required to submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice. presumably because no such posting was accomplished. the reconstituted title of Fortune is likewise void.Facts: A parcel of land was acquired by the FORTUNE TOBACCO for which it was issued a certificate of title (TCT No. . T-68737. otherwise.A. The Act prescribes a special procedure that must be followed in order that the court may act on the petition and grant the remedy sought. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to hear and decide a petition for reconstitution of title is conferred by R. the trial court granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution of TCT No. Noncompliance with the jurisdictional requirement of posting of the notice renders the order of reconstitution null and void. Consequently. While proof of publication of the notice of the petition was submitted by Fortune. Notwithstanding this. 26. there was.A. Accordingly. however. the court acquires jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for the reconstitution of the owner's title upon compliance with the required posting of notices and publication in the Official Gazette. T-68737. including the original copy of TCT No. The specific requirements and procedure are as laid down in Sections 9 and 10 of R. These requirements and procedure are mandatory and must strictly be complied with. No NOTICES. there was no proof of posting of the notice. The lack of compliance with these requirements for the judicial reconstitution of certificates of title deprived the court of jurisdiction over the petition. were posted as required by RA 26. Later.

Baltazar vs Court of Appeals 168 scra 354 FACTS: .47.

Feb 22. 2000 FACTS: .Secuya vs.Vda. de Secva 326 SCRA 244.48.

vs. March 7. Aznal Brothers Realty Co.49. 2008 . Court of Appeals 327 scra 359.

March 9. 2000 . Cruz vs.50. Leis 327 SCRA 570.

2000 . Republic vs Court of Appeals 354 SCRA 148. MARCH 9.51.

52. 2000 . Eulalio Ragwa vs Court of Appeals 324 SCRA 7 January 31.

1999 . Stilianopolous vs. City of Legaspi 316 SCRA 523.53. October 12.

Puzon vs. 2001 . March 6. Lucia Realty and Development Corp. 353 SCRA 699. Sta.54.

Court of Appeals 270 SCRA 329 .55. Villegas vs.

Federico Dordas. In the same petition. DORDAS vs. 26 that warrant judicial reconstitution of title. Municipality of Maayon. Federico Dordas claimed that the lot has actually been in this possession and that all improvements thereon belong to him with no one having any adverse interests whatsoever. This is clearly violative of the notice requirement mandated by R. containing an area of 6. Private respondents appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals. 1962. or more than twenty (20) years from February 9. notwithstanding the fact that the only documents submitted by petitioner was a tracing cloth and blueprint plan which are not among the documents recognized by Republic Act No. Since 1957 also.097 square meters. after declaring the lot for taxation purposes. 1957. The respondent court reversed the trial court and declared null and void the reconstituted title obtained by petitioner. The court ordered the reconstitution of the title upon the ground that the title was lost or destroyed during the last world war. prescription has set in and on this ground. Furthermore. This. now deceased and substituted herein by his heirs. Roxas City. This fact is re-echoed in the . Private respondents filed an action for reconveyance against petitioner in the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court). the heirs of Rafael Dizon and petitioner Federico Dordas filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of the title of the lot.A. respondents have been paying the realty taxes on the lot. Contreras. 26. sold the lot to private respondents Diosdado and Federico Borres on December 27. COURT OF APPEALS 270 SCRA 329 FACTS: Petition for review of the decision on appeal rendered by respondent Court of Appeals in an action for reconveyance filed by private respondents Francisco and Diosdado Borres against petitioner. On February 8. The object of the action for reconveyance is a parcel of land situated in the Poblacion. 1927. Branch 15. petitioner Dordas failed to serve notice of the reconstitution proceedings on private respondents who were the actual occupants of the subject lot. Aforesaid parcel of land was originally owned by one Rafael Dizon. This present action for reconveyance was filed on March 27. Province of Capiz. in turn. the trial court dismissed the action. Respondents have had actual possession of the lot since 1957 up to the present.56. In 1961. 1931 is surely barred by the statutes of limitation. 1962. The trial court ruled that since private respondents filed the case on March 27. No. Dizon sold the lot to one Francisco Contreras.

. RT-2063 (Exh. in fact. 26 the reconstitution suffers fatally. appellants question the validity of this title as having been issued out of an illegal reconstitution proceedings thus making said title null and void." As the title of the law suggests. appellees maintain that the reconstitution of RT-2063 was done all in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.order granting the reconstitution saying that Dordas is the sole occupant of the lot. what seems to be the crucial point in this case is the Reconstituted Title No. In other words it presupposes that the lot had already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System or Act 496. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has the better right to reconstitute the title of lot in question HELD: No. the Liberal Party Headquarters and Diosdado Borres all standing within the lot. which are the pictures of the houses of Filomeno. these allegations were overpowered and belied by the unrebutted testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses and Exhs. in possession of the lot. the enumerated items become the only sources whereby a title may be reconstituted. 26. In obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one. it was ruled that actions for reconveyance based on fraud or on implied or constructive trusts prescribe in ten (10) years. Art. Notably. 1931. Conversely. Nonetheless. D. all establishing [that] the appellants are. CA. The two (2) pieces of documents plan and technical description. As the law mandates using the phrase "in the following order". it covers reconstitution of previously issued but lost or destroyed title over any parcel of land. Remedios Tinsay. 1957. But it is unsafe to assume that plaintiff's cause of action in this case accrued on February 9. C. Celoria. When none of these itemized sources was submitted by Dordas in the reconstitution proceedings and instead relied heavily on tracing cloth and blueprint plan of Lot 1474 and its technical description which are not among those mentioned under Section 3 of Republic Act No. In other words. the computation as to when herein plaintiff's cause of action accrued should not be counted from February 9. In the case of Talle v. Rosalina Banilla. that . E. No. In the Amended Complaint. F & G. is "THE ACT PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS TITLE WHICH WERE LOST OR DESTROYED. 26 laid down procedures which must strictly be followed because it could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings. 1139 of the New Civil Code provides that actions prescribe by mere lapse of time fixed by law. Republic Act No. 1931 or after the expiration of the four (4) year repurchase period in the Deed of Sale between Rafael Dizon and Francisco Contreras The pacto de retro period is a personal prerogative of Rafael Dizon to exercise and is not applicable to herein plaintiff's who acquired the lot from Rafael Dizon's vendee (Francisco Contreras) only in December 27. 208 SCRA 266. are mere additional requirements of the law in case reconstitution is to be made from sources in Section 2F or 3F of the act. the same Republic Act. B) issued in the name of the heirs of Rafael Dizon.

April 4. the instant petition is HEREBY DENIED for utter lack of merit. Costs against petitioners. 57. actual owners and possessors of the land involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition.is.A. 41586. But. No. any other document. Tayag 356 SCRA 263. in themselves. respondent Court of Appeals having correctly nullified and set aside petitioners' reconstituted TCT No. assailing the November 20. The foregoing principle applies in the instant case not only because of the non-compliance by petitioners with the documentary prerequisites in judicial reconstitution of title but also because petitioners failed to satisfy the publication requirement under R. 1997 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. such plan and technical description of the lot are not recognized sources for reconstitution of title under Section 3 of Republic Act No. WHEREFORE. the same must be strictly complied with. Talusan vs. In view of all the foregoing. Private respondents who are in actual possession of the properties were not properly notified. In all cases where the authority to proceed is conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory. . RT-2063. or the proceedings will be utterly void. Notice thereof by publication is insufficient.. Notice of hearing of the petition for reconstitution of title must be served on the actual possessors of the property. 26. Jurisprudence is to the effect settled that in petitions for reconstitution of titles. 12. 26. 2001 FACTS: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. which in the judgment of the court is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title (Sec. the SC uphold the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals as regards the fact that private respondents have a better right to the ownership of the real property in question. The rationale underlying this rule concerns the nature of the conferment in the trial court of the authority to undertake reconstitution proceedings. RA 26).

000.80. public. inter alia.’ [Petitioners] have been in actual possession of the Unit in question. continuous. exemplary damages of not less than P20. 1988. Elias Imperial. plus appearance fee of P2.400. representing total taxes due and penalties thereon. [Respondent] Hermenegildo Tayag filed his [A]nswer with [C]ounterclaim (pages 28-32 of the Record). On July 14.’ There is a need to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to ‘preserve the status quo. Elias Imperial and his entire family emigrated to Australia in 1974.’ [Respondent] Hernandez sold the above-described property to [Respondent] Tayag for P4.79.’ [Petitioners] through intermediaries offered ‘to pay to the [respondents] the sum of P4.’ They asked for: moral damages of not less than P50.039. from its former owner.’ thus.000.’ Elias Imperial never authorized ‘a certain Dante Origan x x x to receive any letter or mail matter for and on his behalf.000. The bid price of P4.039.’ A final bill of sale was later issued ‘in favor of the [Respondent] Hermenegildo Tayag. penalties and cost of sale. x x x sued x x x in his capacity as City Treasurer of Baguio City.000. 464. attorney’s fee of P30.310. including penalties’ is ‘null and void ab initio. and litigation expenses of not less than P5. 1988. wrote a letter to the former owner Elias Imperial informing him that the above described property would be sold at public auction on December 9.400 ‘is so unconscionably low and shocking to the conscience. [herein petitioners] filed a complaint wherein they alleged.000. raised the following affirmative defenses. adverse and in the concept of owners.00. Hernandez. while [Respondent] Hermegildo Tayag has never been in possession of the said property.400 plus all interests and expenses which [they] might have incurred x x x but said offer was rejected without any just [or] lawful cause. as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale: On October 15. 651. [or] to [petitioners].00 ‘without any notice to the former owner thereof. 1985. as evidenced by the Certificate of Sale.00 for every appearance. the sale ‘for the alleged unpaid taxes in the sum of P4. among others: .On June 28. and their possession is open. 1985.00 to prosecute the case. and without compliance with the provisions of PD No. and demanded payment of the sum of P4.00. that: They bought the subject property covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No.00 and the fair market value of the same is more than P300.00 and both [respondents] knew these. wherein he substantially denied the allegations in the complaint and.00. x x x to satisfy the delinquent real estate taxes.’ The assessed value alone of the said property is P37. at the same time. since they bought the same from its former owners. ‘[herein Respondent] Juan D.000.

The said decision has [become] final and executory as evidenced by the Certificate of Finality issued on October 8. 464 otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code and therefore.(T)he ownership of the Condominium unit registered under Condominium Certificate of Title No.’ [Respondent] Tayag then prayed for the award in his favor. has been consolidated in his name by virtue of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio. expenses of litigation. they had acquired the condominium from Elias Imperial. 1988. Branch 6. The said decision has [become] final and executory as evidenced by the Certificate of Finality issued on October 8.000. petitioners alleged that on December 7. particularly. the original registered owner. of: moral damages of at least P50. and. however. 651. no damages may be imputed against him.’ ‘Granting that a Deed of Sale was actually issued in favor of the plaintiffs [because of] the fact that it is unregistered.’ The public auction sale complied with ‘the requirements of Presidential Decree No. the same does not bind third persons including defendant herein. the case cannot prosper. P. on September 16. No. Petitioners also averred that on December 9. 1987 x x x.’ [Petitioners have] no cause of action against him. [Respondent] Hernandez likewise filed an [A]nswer on July 18. 1985. exemplary damages.000. which was affirmed by virtue of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio. 1981.000. he being a ‘buyer in good faith in a regular and lawful public bidding in which any person is qualified to participate. had not and thenceforth never been registered with the Register of Deeds. that: The complaint states no cause of action against the [respondent] herein: ‘[Petitioners] have not complied with x x x Section 83 of P.00. on September 16.400 which represented the unpaid .’ The lower court has no jurisdiction over [petitioners’] claim ‘because the [petitioners] pray for the annulment of the Certificate of the Sale and the Final Bill of Sale. 1987 x x x . Branch 6. The sale was purportedly evidenced by a Deed of Sale which. The property was sold to Respondent Herminigildo Tayag for P4. 1987. for P100.00. 464 x x x thus.’” In their Complaint. 464’ – hence. 1987.D. Baguio City Treasurer Juan Hernandez sold the property at a public auction due to nonpayment of delinquent real estate taxes thereon.’ He also claimed. by way of affirmative defenses. wherein he denied the material averments in the complaint and stated that ‘no irregularity or illegality was committed in the conduct of the proceedings with respect to the delinquent real property of Elias Imperial and the actuations of the defendant herein were all within the limits of his authority and in accordance with the provisions of the law pertaining to delinquent real property. because it was not registered and recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City. Baguio City. the same is ‘lawful and valid:’ [Respondent] Tayag is not bound by the alleged [D]eed of [S]ale in favor of the [petitioners] by Elias [I]mperial. attorney’s fees in the sum of P10.D.

Yes. Thus. Thus. .207-R. the registered owner of a property is deemed the taxpayer and. Case No. In more recent cases. petitioners filed a Complaint seeking the annulment of the auction sale. because they are not the registered owners. HELD: No. According to the trial court. For purposes of real property taxation. binds the whole world. Presidential Decree (PD) 1529. 651 in the name of Elias Imperial and directed the Register of Deeds to issue a new Certificate of Title in the name of Respondent Tayag. equally important. 1987 judgment of Branch 6 of the same court in LRC Adm. the Decision in LRC Adm. can now hear and decide even controversial and contentious cases. the trial court’s ruling consolidating the ownership and the title of the property in the name of herein respondent is valid and binding not only on petitioners. 1988 Order of Branch 5 of the same court which had granted a Petition for the Cancellation of Condominium Certificate of Title No. They cited irregularities in the proceedings and noncompliance with statutory requirements. are not entitled to such notice. being the result of a proceeding in rem.taxes. 207-R had already upheld the legality of the questioned auction sale. intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to promote the expeditious termination of cases. Case No. The Branch 7 Decision also cited the May 31.” ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC Decision in LRC Adm. but also on everyone else who may have any claim thereon. as such. 207-R is a bar to proceeding and whether the auction sale of subject condominium unit should be annulled. contrary to the principle of “conclusiveness of judgment. as well as those involving substantial issues. they must pay their taxes on time. to rule again on the same issue would amount to passing upon a judgment made by a coequal court. therefore. Hence. Moral lessons: real property buyers must register their purchases as soon as possible and. Petitioners. Land registration courts. This earlier Branch 6 Decision had consolidated ownership of the condominium unit in favor of Respondent Tayag. It is equally important to consider that a land registration court’s decision ordering the confirmation and the registration of title. Branch 7 of the RTC of Baguio City cited the December 16. the only one entitled to a notice of tax delinquency and the resultant proceedings relative to an auction sale. hence. Dismissing the Complaint. who allegedly acquired the property through an unregistered deed of sale. Case No. however. the Court declared that this Decree had eliminated the distinction between general jurisdictions vested in the regional trial court and the latter’s limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a land registration court.

who claims to be the owner of the property occupied by him. the one who has registered the sale in one’s favor has a preferred right over the other whose title has not been registered. That judgment was rendered against him in the ejectment case. That on January 11. all surnamed Aldaba. it is a well-settled principle that between two purchasers. equitable considerations will not find application. 58. Marcelita. 195-M-94. 2001 FACTS: A complaint for quieting of title. they did not take the necessary steps to protect and legitimize their interest. 1983. 191498 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan in the names of Turandut. Victoria and Rosary. Likewise. Mathews. Malolos. LIM vs. Costs against petitioners. which he elevated to the appellate court. VERA CRUZ 356 SCRA 386. for time is a means of obliterating actions. While it may be assumed that both petitioners and Respondent Tayag are innocent purchasers of the subject property. he discovered . the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. but not those who sleep on their rights. docketed as Civil Case No. Indeed.As correctly pointed out by respondents. Verily. That a complaint for ejectment was filed against him in 1993 by private respondent Henry Lim. Traviata. April 4. T-16375 registered in his name. annulment and damages was filed by petitioner against private respondents [5] before the Regional Trial Court. Rosary Aldaba sold to him said 200 square meter portion. and that upon investigation. we cannot help but point out the fact that petitioners brought this misfortune upon themselves. being a portion of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. Pacita. Malolos. WHEREFORE. petitioners’ suit is now barred by laches. time runs against the slothful and the contemners of their own rights. Marlene. They neither registered the Deed of Sale after its execution nor moved for the consolidation of ownership of title to the property in their name. if the statutes or rules of procedure explicitly provide for the requisites and standards by which the matters at bench can be resolved. Bulacan covered by TCT No. Although they had been in possession of the property since 1981. which is included in the formers one-eight share in Lot 4204. Bulacan. consisting of 1. alleging that he has been in possession since 1960 of a 200 square meter portion of Lot 4204 situated in Barrio Tikay. they failed to pay the real property taxes due.732 square meters. Worse. The law helps the vigilant. even if the latter is in actual possession of the subject property. Branch 84.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the notice of lis pendens. or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. the trial court held that respondents unregistered deed of sale can not be accorded more weight than petitioners certificate of title.000. or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby.000. a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court. only the particular property subject of litigation is covered by the notice of lis pendens. Petitioners contend that the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens by the trial court is justified because respondent had it registered for the sole purpose of molesting them and that it is not necessary to protect his rights. T-16375 upon the posting by private respondents of an indemnity bond in the amount of P2. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense. be deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action. or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded. HELD: No. Sec. T-16375 in the name of private respondents was obtained in bad faith. 14 Notice of lis pendens In an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property. Cancellation of lis pendens before final judgment. after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. In justifying the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated October 7. The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only upon order of the court.00. respondent judge issued an order cancelling the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of TCT No. and a description of the property in that province affected thereby. On July 22. Sec. Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. as amended. and only of its pendency against the parties designated by their real names. 1998. the plaintiff and the defendant. 1998. 14. by fraud and/or clever machination. when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer. after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party.that TCT No. may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Based on this principle as well as the express provisions of Sec. Only from the time of filing of such notice for record shall a purchaser. Petitioner caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT T-16375. 77. It may also be cancelled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused registration thereof. .

For purposes of annotating a notice of lis pendens, there is nothing in the rules which requires the party seeking annotation to show that the land belongs to him. In fact, there is no requirement that the party applying for the annotation of the notice must prove his right or interest over the property sought to be annotated. Hence, even on the basis of an unregistered deed of sale, a notice of lis pendens may be annotated on the title. And such annotation can not be considered as a collateral attack against the certificate of title. This is based on the principle that the registration of a notice of lis pendens does not produce a legal effect similar to a lien. It does not create a right or lien. It only means that a person purchases or contracts on the property in dispute subject to the result of the pending litigation. The Court observed that the trial judge was convinced that the cancellation of the lis pendens is not in order. Otherwise, he should not have required petitioners to post a bond of P2,000,000.00 The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reasons of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. This purpose would be rendered meaningless if petitioners are allowed to file a bond, regardless of the amount, in substitution of said notice. The Court held that the law does not authorize a judge to cancel a notice of lis pendens pending litigation upon the mere filing of sufficient bond by the party on whose title said notice is annotated. Petitioners likewise insist that since respondent lost in the ejectment suit they filed against him, it follows that he also lost whatever right he has in the 200 square meter portion and that, therefore, he has no more right to be protected by the notice of lis pendens. It bears emphasis that respondent caused the registration of the notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 195-M-94 for quieting of title to his, 200 square meter lot, not in the ejectment case. Consequently, the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. T-16375 must stay. Indeed, there is nothing in the records indicating that the notice of lis pendens is for the purpose of molesting herein petitioners or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of respondent. WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

59. PO LAM vs. COURT OF APPEALS 316 SCRA 721, October 13, 1999 FACTS: On November 12, 1981, Lim filed in the same Civil Case No. 2953 a motion to annotate the said Resolution of the Court of Appeals of March 11, 1989 in G.R. No. 44770-R on the certificate of title of the spouses Po Lam. He likewise moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the said Resolution and for the execution in his favor of a deed of conveyance of the lots litigated upon. However, the said motions were all denied by the trial court in its Order dated February 4, 1982. On September 19, 1985, Lim again filed with the trial court in Civil Case 2953, a motion to include spouses Roy Po Lam and Josefa Ong Po Lam as party defendants in the case, as well as a motion to execute the March 11, 1981 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in AC G.R. No. 44770-R. On October 16, 1985, both motions were denied by the trial court and on appeal, in CA G. R. No. 08533-CV, the Court of Appeals upheld the Order of Denial. On October 29, 1990, Felix Lim assigned all his rights to and interest in subject properties to Jose Lee, (a lessee of a commercial building standing on Lot No. 1557), who since then, has substituted Felix Lim as party plaintiff, now the private respondent. June 1970, after the herein petitioners bought subject lots from LACHO, the former leased the commercial building on Lot 1557 to the herein private respondent, Jose Lee. On December 19, 1993, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Legaspi City handed down its decision in the said unlawful detainer case, declaring the herein petitioners as the lawful owners of Lot 1557. On February 18, 1988, in G. R. No. 84145-55 (Lim vs. Court of Appeals),this Court ruled on Felix Lims appeal from CA-G.R. No. 12316-SP (unlawful detainer case) and from CA G. R. No. 08533-CV (which affirmed the October 16, 1985 Order of the trial court in Civil Case no. 2953).

On January 14, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City decided Civil Case No 6767 affirmed the decisions rendered in AC-G. R. No. 44770-R promulgated on March 11, 1981.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners then be treated purchasers in good faith of Lot 1557 covered by TCT No. 2580 considering that the notice of lis pendens thereon had been already cancelled at the time of the sale. HELD: Yes. It is a firmly settled jurisprudence that a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard and claim that he acted in good faith in the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such a defect exist, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendors title, will not make him innocent purchaser for value, if it develops afterwards that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had notice of such defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation. In the case under consideration, there exist circumstances which should have placed the herein petitioners on guard. As aptly stressed upon by the respondent court, while it is true that when the petitioners purchased Lot 1557, the notice of lis pendens affecting said lot had been cancelled, it could not be denied that such inscription appears on the Transfer Certificate of Title of the said lot together with the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. This fact coupled with the non-cancellation of the notice of lis pendens on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2581 covering Lot 1558, should have sufficiently alerted the petitioners vis-a-vis a possible defect in the title of LACHO, especially so that Lots 1557 and 1558 were simultaneously sold to the petitioners in a single deed of sale executed on May 28, 1969. Then too, considering that Lots 1557 and 1558 are prime commercial lots at the heart of the commercial district of Legaspi City, it is unbelievable that the petitioners who were assisted in purchasing the lots by Atty. Rodolfo Madrid (who during his time was a well-known lawyer of competence in the Province of Albay) would have released the purchase price of 700,000.00 without inquiring into the status of the subject lots. Verily, spouses Roy Po Lam and Josefa Ong Po Lam willfully closed their eyes to the possibility of a defect in the vendors (LACHO) title. lots The petitioners, very much aware of the pending litigation affecting the under controversy, gambled on the outcome of the litigation.

the Petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. not purchasers in good faith and are thus bound by the Resolution dated March 11. 37452 AFFIRMED in toto. Premises studiedly considered. that the petitioners. the Court is of the ineluctable conclusion. WHEREFORE. CV No. they cannot now be permitted to evade the outcome of the risk they assumed. Roy Po Lam and Josefa Ong Po Lam.R. . and so holds.R.Consequently. 1981 of the Court of Appeals in AC-G. 44770-R. are transferees pendente lite and therefore. No pronouncement as to costs. No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful